Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[Flintlock]

That is not necessarily true - if a Pakistani historian were to make claims you disagreed with, you would be sure to ask how he/she arrived at their conclusions. It would be completely appropriate to question their sources and evidence, so why shouldn't that yardstick be applied to other contentious issues?

I believe that Indian and some Bangladeshi historians have an agenda when they talk about, IMO, highly inflated casulaties resulting from events of 1971. Hence my insistence on the methodology and evidence used to arrive at their numbers. Other historians could have similar biases, agenda's, omissions etc.

Radha Kumud Mookerji, Chandragupta Maurya and His Times, 4th ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1988 [1966]), 31, 28–33.

This is a comprehensive work dealing with the life and times of India`s first historical emperor, and a picture of the civilization of India in the early period of the fourth century BC. The author had utilized much material found in Arthasastra. The work also embodies collation and comparison of evidence from different sources, classical works in Sanskrit, Buddhist and jaina texts and the inscriptions of Asoka. The book gives a detailed account of Chandragupta Maurya and the general view of his administration. It has covered almost all aspects of administration including the king, ministers and officers with rules of service and divisions of administrative departments; governance of land system and rural administration along with municipal administration, the source of law and dispensation of justice and the army and its management. Besides social and economic conditions of that times have been elaborately discussed. The detailed contents serves as an index of subjects, the other parts are--Index of technical terms, three appendics which enrich utility of the book and a plate of typical Mauryan Coins. DR. RADHA KUMUD MOOKERJI is Professor of History in the Bengal National College under the Principalship of the late Sri Aurobindo. Subsequently he joined the Mysore University where he was Professor of History from 1917 to 1921. Thereafter he became Professor and Head of the Department of History in Lucknow University and remained there for twenty-five years. He was a prolific author and had to his credit 15 books on different aspects of ancient India.

http://www.vedicbooks.net/chandragupta-maurya-and-his-times-p-2259.html

Here is the relevant part of the book on Google Books:

http://books.google.com.sg/books?id...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA38,M1

 

[Jay_]

The name India, bastardized and all, is derived from the Indus/Sindhu. That's my point, not that it is what the natives of the time called it, but that it originated because of a geographical feature, a river, called the Indus, now located in Pakistan. Therefore the usage of the name by the Indian Republic on the basis of any geographic indicators is flawed, since the geographic indicators are not located in India.

If Indus river is not in India, I wonder why India is a signatory to Indus river water treaty. A cursory glance on Indus river catchment areas or the flow of the river itself would prove whether Indus flows through India or not.

The river originates in China (Tibet), it flows through India in to Pakistan and empty's at Arabian Ocean. So all of your contentions that India has no geographical locus standi on Indus is just hogwash.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If Indus river is not in India, I wonder why India is a signatory to Indus river water treaty. A cursory glance on Indus river catchment areas or the flow of the river itself would prove whether Indus flows through India or not.

The river originates in China (Tibet), it flows through India in to Pakistan and empty's at Arabian Ocean. So all of your contentions that India has no geographical locus standi on Indus is just hogwash.

Laddakh as part of J&K is disputed, and the selection of the name at the time of India's creation after partition could not have possibly been with the foresight of J&K, or even a part of it, going to India.

Until a final resolution of the J&K dispute that puts territory the Indus runs through under India, the Indus does not flow through recognized Indian territory.

 

[ju87]

The huge discussion on Pakistan being India aside (I think Pakistan has a pretty weak case on this), the reason Nehru might have selected the name India, rather than Hindustan or Bharat or worse yet, Aryavarta (VHP would've loved it) was to present a secular image of the country. Congress always envisioned India as secular rather than Hindu and naming the country Hindustan or Bharat would give it Hindu overtones. Something Pakistan would've jumped to bashing anyway, it seems to be a national pastime to bash India judging from the posts here.

 

[rubyjackass]

OK guys...
I will give a hopefully irrefutable arguement.
Consider the history in terms of people not in terms of region.
So it means that the history of India belongs to modern Indians as well.
Actually here the values of that history are still practised.
The history of ancient India is their history too.
In terms of this, modern Indians constitute mainstream India.

And hence ...

 

[UnitedPak]

OK guys...
I will give a hopefully irrefutable arguement.
Consider the history in terms of people not in terms of region.
So it means that the history of India belongs to modern Indians as well.
Actually here the values of that history are still practised.
The history of ancient India is their history too.
In terms of this, modern Indians constitute mainstream India.

And hence ...

India does not represent one group of people. Each group of people in India have their own history and culture. You cant associate certain historical events in Pakistani land, with masses of people in India who have no historical ties to Pakistani land.

The term Indian has been used for different people throughout the subcontinent. Alexander used it for a specific group of people residing between two rivers in Pakistani Punjab. These people were not in any sense united with other people in the subcontinent.

The British used the term Indian for the whole subcontinent, and this is the definition modern Indians prefer.

The logical use of the term Indian would be that to define modern India, not 1849-1947 British Indian empire.
And the history associated with "Ancient India" should be that which belongs to modern Indians, not to the people of 1849-1947 British Indian empire.

The definition of "Ancient India" itself is very vague. I have heard claims that ancient India extended from modern day Afghanistan to Vietnam.

 

[Flintlock]

What was that about?

The name isn't used entirely out of place, it is nonetheless inaccurate since it implies that the modern Indian republic is synonymous with the ancient Indian region.

Its like a country calling itself Asia.

The word Asia originated from the Greek word "Ἀσία", first attributed to Herodotus (about 440 B.C.) in reference to Anatolia or, for the purposes of describing the Persian Wars, to the Persian Empire
Asia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which means that "Asia" originally referred Anatolia (Turkey).

So is the ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations) wrong to use the term "Asia" to identify itself, because it doesn't include the "original" Asia i.e. Anatolia (Turkey)?

Especially since Turkey now considers itself a part of Europe?

If an Asian Union is formed in the future which excludes the middle-east, will it be wrong if it refers to itself as the "Asian Union"?

Obviously not, because its the usage that matters, not the origin. This is what I have argued throughout this thread, but you seem to be unwilling to understand that.

Even if the origin does matter to some people, the river Indus does flow through Ladakh, which is for all intents and purposes a part of the Republic of India.

 

[Vinod2070]

The definition of "Ancient India" itself is very vague. I have heard claims that ancient India extended from modern day Afghanistan to Vietnam.

That was the extent of the spread of Indian civilization, may be even more.

You go to Korea and you will find that they have stories from the Ramayana! Just check what you see at the airport in Bangkok, at the Angkor Wat in Combodia, check the extent of Indian civilization influence in Indonesia, Malaysia and so on.

The extent of Aryavrata or Jambudweepa (mentioned in our scriptures) does not extend to those lands. It probably includes most of the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan.

 

[UnitedPak]

That was the extent of the spread of Indian civilization, may be even more.

You go to Korea and you will find that they have stories from the Ramayana! Just check what you see at the airport in Bangkok, at the Angkor Wat in Combodia, check the extent of Indian civilization influence in Indonesia, Malaysia and so on.

The extent of Aryavrata or Jambudweepa (mentioned in our scriptures) does not extend to those lands. It probably includes most of the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan.

The spread of a certain ideology does not equate to the borders of Ancient India.
Would you define everything between Spain and Kashmir as being part of Ancient Saudi Arabia? And that the people of Saudi lay claim to history of everything in that region (from the beginning of time)?

A nation should represent the people of that nation. In the Indian case, why do so many things originate from the lands of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal etc?

 

[Vinod2070]

The spread of a certain ideology does not equate to the borders of Ancient India.
Would you define everything between Spain and Kashmir as being part of Ancient Saudi Arabia? And that the people of Saudi lay claim to history of everything in that region (from the beginning of time)?

A nation should represent the people of that nation. In the Indian case, why do so many things originate from the lands of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal etc?

That is where the confusion lies. These countries are modern entities. There was no Pakistan before 1947. Nepal is definitely a part of the Indian civilization, you have to just go there to see it. I have done so and can say that with authority. Afghanistan was more or less on the periphery of the Indian civilization for most of the time. Like we had Shakuni (a villain) in Mahabharata coming from Gandhara.

Pakistan was founded on the basis of Islam, to represent the Islamic heritage of India (from the time of invasion of Bin Qasim). It is debatable if it can be said to represent all of that but that was the premise as per your own father of the nation.

So the fact remains that Pakistan has forsaken any pre-Islamic history willingly. Many Pakistanis even try to claim foreign lineage form the invaders (many on this forum) and feel proud of that. What kind of heritage do they have over any history of ancient India?

I will argue that Pakistan is about an idea rather than about a geography (which is just an accident). Any claim of trying to claim any history post facto on the basis of that geography is dishonest. Trying to do that exclusively is outright fraud! No one gave any significance to the IVC at the time when Pakistan was created. Do you want to change the whole basis of your nationhood just because the British discovered the IVC!

The period before the partition was a period of common and shared history. Don't you guys also feel that the Mughal history belongs to Pakistan too, even though it was based in present India for the most part?

The country was not politically united for much of that history but that does not take away from a significantly common civilization and culture with local variations.

 

[UnitedPak]

That is where the confusion lies. These countries are modern entities. There was no Pakistan before 1947. Nepal is definitely a part of the Indian civilization, you have to just go there to see it. I have done so and can say that with authority. Afghanistan was more or less on the periphery of the Indian civilization for most of the time. Like we had Shakuni (a villain) in Mahabharata coming from Gandhara.

Pakistan was founded on the basis of Islam, to represent the Islamic heritage of India (from the time of invasion of Bin Qasim). It is debatable if it can be said to represent all of that but that was the premise as per your own father of the nation.

So the fact remains that Pakistan has forsaken any pre-Islamic history willingly. Many Pakistanis even try to claim foreign lineage form the invaders (many on this forum) and feel proud of that. What kind of heritage do they have over any history of ancient India?

I will argue that Pakistan is about an idea rather than about a geography (which is just an accident). Any claim of trying to claim any history post facto on the basis of that geography is dishonest. Trying to do that exclusively is outright fraud! No one gave any significance to the IVC at the time when Pakistan was created. Do you want to change the whole basis of your nationhood just because the British discovered the IVC!

The period before the partition was a period of common and shared history. Don't you guys also feel that the Mughal history belongs to Pakistan too, even though it was based in present India for the most part?

The country was not politically united for much of that history but that does not take away from a significantly common civilization and culture with local variations.

You cant decide in any way that "Pakistan has forsaken its pre Islamic history". In reality there is no such thing as forsaking your own history. Yes I agree, Pakistanis have ignored their pre Islamic history, but its not up for grabs to the highest bidder.

No matter how hard you try to justify this using 19th century politics, the ancestors of the Pakistani people will remain the same. Ancestors of Indian people wont change. You cant simply start claiming a foreign peoples identity, even if they have certain misconceptions.
And least of all, you shouldn't be promoting said misconceptions.

I don't understand what logic you are using to turn Pakistan into a special case scenario. Do you realise how many countries gained independence in the 20th century from European colonialism?

India is in that list too.

Pakistan is simply another country that gained independence. Nothing was "created" in the way you seem to be stuck on. Pakistani people were not created overnight. Neither was Pakistani land or identity or language or history.

14 August 1947 was not a grand amnesia day.

 

[Vinod2070]

You cant decide in any way that "Pakistan has forsaken its pre Islamic history". In reality there is no such thing as forsaking your own history. Yes I agree, Pakistanis have ignored their pre Islamic history, but its not up for grabs to the highest bidder.

No matter how hard you try to justify this using 19th century politics, the ancestors of the Pakistani people will remain the same. Ancestors of Indian people wont change. You cant simply start claiming a foreign peoples identity, even if they have certain misconceptions.
And least of all, you shouldn't be promoting said misconceptions.

I don't understand what logic you are using to turn Pakistan into a special case scenario. Do you realise how many countries gained independence in the 20th century from European colonialism?

India is in that list too.

Pakistan is simply another country that gained independence. Nothing was "created" in the way you seem to be stuck on. Pakistani people were not created overnight. Neither was Pakistani land or identity or language or history.

14 August 1947 was not a grand amnesia day.

Again, I never said that the ancient history does not belong to you. It does. It is you who called in Jahiliya and shunned it like much of the Muslim world did and the Arabs did.

If now some of you have come to realize that it was not all Jahiliya before Kasim invaded Sindh, good for you. It means you were lied to earlier about this matter!

 

[rubyjackass]

India does not represent one group of people. Each group of people in India have their own history and culture. You cant associate certain historical events in Pakistani land, with masses of people in India who have no historical ties to Pakistani land.

The term Indian has been used for different people throughout the subcontinent. Alexander used it for a specific group of people residing between two rivers in Pakistani Punjab. These people were not in any sense united with other people in the subcontinent.

The British used the term Indian for the whole subcontinent, and this is the definition modern Indians prefer.

The logical use of the term Indian would be that to define modern India, not 1849-1947 British Indian empire.
And the history associated with "Ancient India" should be that which belongs to modern Indians, not to the people of 1849-1947 British Indian empire.

The definition of "Ancient India" itself is very vague. I have heard claims that ancient India extended from modern day Afghanistan to Vietnam.

Ancient India was 'the land east of Indus'. Not land between some two rivers(particularly not those in Punjab).
And Indians sre those who carry the culture now. The same people had it as far as Arunachal Pradesh and Tamilnadu.


'These people were not in any sense united with other people in the subcontinent.'
May be...
But their culture was so similar. And later they could all live together under later emperors.

'The definition of "Ancient India" itself is very vague. I have heard claims that ancient India extended from modern day Afghanistan to Vietnam.'

So be it...
THe people who understood they are Indians came under India.

With such long history and vagueness in the territoy at that time. It is only reasonable that, as time goes, the land where people still follow the same culture be regarded by the name. Ancient India started as 'land of Hindus'. Then lot of mingling with foreign invaders happened. This new culture began to be associated with India and the land which exhibited this culture as new India. This repeated till the modern times.

So, the people who subscribed to this wholesome culture after independence claimed the name 'India'.
And those who rejected it became something else.
And so I don't see anything against India being 'India'.


And the reason why still people feel a togetherness because at some point of time transitivvely every part of India got ruled by rulers of some other part or had very cordial relations with another part.

 

[UnitedPak]

Ancient India was 'the land east of Indus'. Not land between some two rivers(particularly not those in Punjab).
And Indians sre those who carry the culture now. The same people had it as far as Arunachal Pradesh and Tamilnadu.


'These people were not in any sense united with other people in the subcontinent.'
May be...
But their culture was so similar. And later they could all live together under later emperors.

'The definition of "Ancient India" itself is very vague. I have heard claims that ancient India extended from modern day Afghanistan to Vietnam.'

So be it...
THe people who understood they are Indians came under India.

With such long history and vagueness in the territoy at that time. It is only reasonable that, as time goes, the land where people still follow the same culture be regarded by the name. Ancient India started as 'land of Hindus'. Then lot of mingling with foreign invaders happened. This new culture began to be associated with India and the land which exhibited this culture as new India. This repeated till the modern times.

So, the people who subscribed to this wholesome culture after independence claimed the name 'India'.
And those who rejected it became something else.
And so I don't see anything against India being 'India'.


And the reason why still people feel a togetherness because at some point of time transitivvely every part of India got ruled by rulers of some other part or had very cordial relations with another part.

Please use facts so that I can better understand your point of view.

I was specifically talking about Porus Kingdom of Punjab which Alexander invaded. That kingdom was referred to as "India", and it was entirely located inside Pakistan, between two of the Indus river tributaries (Jhelum and the Chenab). Technically speaking the kingdom starts "east of the Indus", but ends not far from "east of the Indus".

The culture argument you present is flawed. I have already pointed out in the posts above that converting to Islam doesnt change our origins or ancestors. But which culture in particular are you referring to yourself?

Culture of North India? East India? South India?

What makes you think the pre Islamic Pakistani culture was "so similar" to "Indian culture", if India itself has so many different cultures?
Would you define Tamil, Gujarati, and Assamese cultures "so similar". If not, then which ones of these cultures is "so similar" to the pre Islamic Pakistani culture?

 

[ju87]

Please use facts so that I can better understand your point of view.

I was specifically talking about Porus Kingdom of Punjab which Alexander invaded. That kingdom was referred to as "India", and it was entirely located inside Pakistan, between two of the Indus river tributaries (Jhelum and the Chenab). Technically speaking the kingdom starts "east of the Indus", but ends not far from "east of the Indus".

The culture argument you present is flawed. I have already pointed out in the posts above that converting to Islam doesnt change our origins or ancestors. But which culture in particular are you referring to yourself?

Culture of North India? East India? South India?

What makes you think the pre Islamic Pakistani culture was "so similar" to "Indian culture", if India itself has so many different cultures?
Would you define Tamil, Gujarati, and Assamese cultures "so similar". If not, then which ones of these cultures is "so similar" to the pre Islamic Pakistani culture?

To give you an example, Germany was never a united country till 1871. North Germans are Lutheran while Bavaria is Catholic. Southern German dialects are so different from the Northern German dialects. Does that mean Germany does not exist today as a nation? Is there no German nationalism (post-WWII there isn't much but that's another story). Despite this, German history is called German history. So why is India singled out every time as a nation that "didn't exist"? The concept of nation states itself did not exist until the 16th Century in Europe and 1945 in Asia (Japan excepted).