Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[Flintlock]

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".

Oh for goodness sake why are you people so fixated with Alexander? Everytime the topic comes up I read a new post on how Alexander visited Pakistan and not India.

Since 300 BC historians and writers have referred to the entire subcontinent as India. That's a grand total of over 2200 years. If after all of this history you are still stuck with Alexander's encounter with King Paurush then only Allah can help you.

Also, the reason why Alexander turned back was because he heard of a mighty Indian king with 6000 war elephants at his disposal. Clearly, he would not have considered this kingdom (Magadha to be precise) to be part of Europe or Africa.

Alexander's next goal was to reach the Ganges River, which was actually 250 miles away, because he thought that it flowed into the outer Ocean. His troops, however, had heard tales of the powerful Indian tribes that lived on the Ganges and remembered the difficulty of the battle with Porus, so they refused to go any farther east. Alexander was extremely disappointed, but he accepted their decision and persuaded them to travel south down the rivers Hydaspes and Indus so that they might reach the Ocean on the southern edge of the world. The army rode down the rivers on the rivers on rafts and stopped to attack and subdue villages along the way. During this trip, Alexander sought out the Indian philosophers, the Brahmins, who were famous for their wisdom, and debated them on philosophical issues.

Source you say? Here it is:

Alexander in India

 

[Vinod2070]

^^ It is so obviously a fact that Alexander did not enter further into India because the real Indian empire of the time (the Magadha) had a large standing army of 100,000 plus. Alexander's soldiers refused to push in on knowing this.

What Alexander encountered was a small frontier Indian Hindu king at the margins of India and that was enough to give him a scare.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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).

I don;t see that as a valid comparison to South Asia - the intra-German distinctions you refer to are ideological and dialectal, whereas the intra-South Asian distinctions are cultural, ethnic, linguistic AND dialectal.

Intra-German distinctions are better compared to intra-Pashtun or intra-Punjabi differences.

There is no grouping such as 'Indian' beyond the contemporary Indian nation state, that is identified with 'nationhood'. Prior to 1947, India was just an identifier for a 'region', as is 'Asia' - this has all been covered before.

 

[Flintlock]

There is no grouping such as 'Indian' beyond the contemporary Indian nation state, that is identified with 'nationhood'. Prior to 1947, India was just an identifier for a 'region', as is 'Asia' - this has all been covered before.

Is that so? Oh dear - then I wonder from where all these Indian Nationalists appeared all of a sudden in 1947 and for some strange reason, began to raise Indian flags and sing some anthem!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

the real Indian empire of the time

Oh and how convenient for you to determine the 'real' Indian empire. Were there carpet baggers going around selling fake 'empire certificates', that there are distinctions to be made between what is 'real' or not?

The term 'India' historically refers to a 'region', as does the term 'Asia', whether an empire was large or small does not determine whether it was 'real Indian' or 'fake Indian', just as history for Asia cannot be classified as 'real Asian or fake Asian'.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Is that so? Oh dear - then I wonder from where all these Indian Nationalists appeared all of a sudden in 1947 and for some strange reason, began to raise Indian flags and sing some anthem!

Precisely my point - they appeared all of a sudden.

Your argument is just as flawed as that made by Muslims arguing for a pan-Islamic nation. Just because the idea exists does not mean the nation itself is justified, or that if all Muslim lands are one day (say the year 2400) conquered or united, that an argument can be retrospectively made that, 'look - there was Islamic nationalism and all these scholars and political leaders calling for a united Islamic nation, ergo the Islamic world was always one nation'.

The 'Indian nationalism' argument is just as bankrupt as that one.

 

[ju87]

I don;t see that as a valid comparison to South Asia - the intra-German distinctions you refer to are ideological and dialectal, whereas the intra-South Asian distinctions are cultural, ethnic, linguistic AND dialectal.

Intra-German distinctions are better compared to intra-Pashtun or intra-Punjabi differences.

There is no grouping such as 'Indian' beyond the contemporary Indian nation state, that is identified with 'nationhood'. Prior to 1947, India was just an identifier for a 'region', as is 'Asia' - this has all been covered before.

There was no 'Germany' before 1871 either - it was Bavaria, Bohemia, Saxony, Prussia, etc.

So what if there are so many great variations in India? A nation state doesn't have to be COMPLETELY homogenous - it has to have a few common threads of similarities. Indian Tamils and Gujaratis aren't as different as Mexicans and Ethiopians for example. They might not be all Germans but they're not Mexicans, Ethiopians and Finns stuck in a room either. To think of it, I don't know any parallel or precedent to what has happened in India - an incredible variety of people have existed as a single nation for 60 years under a democracy. So we might be wrong in looking for a historical comparison anyway.

 

[ju87]

Oh and how convenient for you to determine the 'real' Indian empire. Were there carpet baggers going around selling fake 'empire certificates', that there are distinctions to be made between what is 'real' or not?

The term 'India' historically refers to a 'region', as does the term 'Asia', whether an empire was large or small does not determine whether it was 'real Indian' or 'fake Indian', just as history for Asia cannot be classified as 'real Asian or fake Asian'.

He meant the Magadha empire was strong enough and as such the real force that stopped Alexander's conquests.

Precisely my point - they appeared all of a sudden.

Really now? So the concept of an Indian nation has NO basis whatsoever in Indian history? No basis in a united Mughal empire, a Mauryan or Gupta empire?

 

[Flintlock]

Precisely my point - they appeared all of a sudden.

My dear friend, Indian Nationalism has a long and rich history, which culminated in the formation of the Republic of India in 1947.
Need I say more?

Your argument is just as flawed as that made by Muslims arguing for a pan-Islamic nation. Just because the idea exists does not mean the nation itself is justified, or that if all Muslim lands are one day (say the year 2400) conquered or united, that an argument can be retrospectively made that, 'look - there was Islamic nationalism and all these scholars and political leaders calling for a united Islamic nation, ergo the Islamic world was always one nation'.

Well the Indian nation exists, and so does Indian nationalism. Does that make it justified in your opinion?

The 'Indian nationalism' argument is just as bankrupt as that one.

Oh dear....well that's just too bad for you, cause the existence of the Indian nation is more than enough to justify the arguments for Indian Nationalism.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There was no 'Germany' before 1871 either - it was Bavaria, Bohemia, Saxony, Prussia, etc.

So what if there are so many great variations in India? A nation state doesn't have to be COMPLETELY homogenous - it has to have a few common threads of similarities. Indian Tamils and Gujaratis aren't as different as Mexicans and Ethiopians for example. They might not be all Germans but they're not Mexicans, Ethiopians and Finns stuck in a room either. To think of it, I don't know any parallel or precedent to what has happened in India - an incredible variety of people have existed as a single nation for 60 years under a democracy. So we might be wrong in looking for a historical comparison anyway.

It doesn't quite work that way.

You are arbitrarily defining a region that fits in with this mythical 'Indian nation' and arguing that the 'shared threads/similarities' justify the 'nation' argument.

Move across any contiguous land mass and you will notice a steady melding from one group of people into another - hardly ever do you get a stark contrast such as teh one you make of the Finnish and Ethiopians.

For example, go from East to West in Pakistan, and characteristics and culture steadliy , not abruptly, change, the same occurs as you move steadily into Iran and Afghanistan, and from there into the Arab world etc. etc.

Move East from within Pakistan and across India and into East Asia, and you see the same steady shifting. So these 'common thread's can be determined in any direction. Pakistan can claim 'common threads' with Afghanistan and Iran for example. Why should similarities with the modern Indian republic only take precedence?

 

[Flintlock]

Move East from within Pakistan and across India and into East Asia, and you see the same steady shifting. So these 'common thread's can be determined in any direction. Pakistan can claim 'common threads' with Afghanistan and Iran for example. Why should similarities with the modern Indian republic only take precedence?

Sure, but it depends on how people see it. If a group of people agree that they have enough commonalities to form a nation, then that's how it is.

As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

[ju87]

It doesn't quite work that way.

You are arbitrarily defining a region that fits in with this mythical 'Indian nation' and arguing that the 'shared threads/similarities' justify the 'nation' argument.

Move across any contiguous land mass and you will notice a steady melding from one group of people into another - hardly ever do you get a stark contrast such as teh one you make of the Finnish and Ethiopians.

For example, go from East to West in Pakistan, and characteristics and culture steadliy , not abruptly, change, the same occurs as you move steadily into Iran and Afghanistan, and from there into the Arab world etc. etc.

Move East from within Pakistan and across India and into East Asia, and you see the same steady shifting. So these 'common thread's can be determined in any direction. Pakistan can claim 'common threads' with Afghanistan and Iran for example. Why should similarities with the modern Indian republic only take precedence?

I have no problems with Pakistan merging with Iran and Afghanistan. In fact I saw a thread here sometime back calling for just that. If Pakistanis can live as peacefully as Indians have so far in a national union of Iran-Pak-Afghanistan, I'm happy for them.

And I'm not arbitrarily defining a region either. The Indian subcontinent is a distinct geographical region with distinct geographical boundaries - the Baluchistan desert, Himalayas, north-eastern jungles and the Indian ocean. It's people look similar to each other by and large and share a common history. Of course, with the Partition, India is no longer at its geographical boundaries and also has minorities that were not historically Indian. But that is a tragedy of history one has to live with.

We even have a separate tectonic plate from Asia!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My dear friend, Indian Nationalism has a long and rich history, which culminated in the formation of the Republic of India in 1947.
Need I say more?

So does pan-Islamic nationalism - a few hundred years more and it will likely still exist - duration of existence of any view point does not make it a valid argument

Well the Indian nation exists, and so does Indian nationalism. Does that make it justified in your opinion?

Oh dear....well that's just too bad for you, cause the existence of the Indian nation is more than enough to justify the arguments for Indian Nationalism.

First off, I am not questioning the contemporary Indian republics nationhood - I am questioning the arguments raised in support of an "Indian nation' prior to 1947.

The contemporary Indian Republic only validates the argument of nationhood for the peoples and regions that chose to become part of it, just as a pan-Islamic nation will only justify the argument of nationhood for the peoples and regions that choose to become part of it.

If only half of the Islamic world chooses to unite in a nation a few hundred years from now, the fact that 'Islamic nationalism' exists in favor of the unification of ALL of the Islamic world does not imply that the other half that does not choose to become part of this future "Islamic nation' is also somehow a part of it.

Your nationhood extends only so far as the people who accept it - and it is clear from the existence of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, what the extent of the 'Indian nation' is.

 

[ju87]

So does pan-Islamic nationalism - a few hundred years more and it will likely still exist - duration of existence of any view point does not make it a valid argument


First off, I am not questioning the contemporary Indian republics nationhood - I am questioning the arguments raised in support of an "Indian nation' prior to 1947.

The contemporary Indian Republic only validates the argument of nationhood for the peoples and regions that chose to become part of it, just as a pan-Islamic nation will only justify the argument of nationhood for the peoples and regions that choose to become part of it.

If only half of the Islamic world chooses to unite in a nation a few hundred years from now, the fact that 'Islamic nationalism' exists in favor of the unification of ALL of the Islamic world does not imply that the other half that does not choose to become part of this future "Islamic nation' is also somehow a part of it.

Your nationhood extends only so far as the people who accept it - and it is clear from the existence of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, what the extent of the 'Indian nation' is.

AFAIK, the two nation theory was floated in the 1920s. For the sake of clarity, let's assume Indian nationalism began with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885. From 1885 to 1920s then, there was a case being made for an "Indian nation", without the idea of Pakistan.

 

[Flintlock]

^A nation is a group of people who consider themselves to be one, but may or may not have a country of their own. Its impossible to define when India became a nation, but clearly sometime between the great rebellion of 1857 and the declaration of independence of 1947, the birth of Indian nationhood took place.