Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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!

But you are arbitrarily defining a region, even geographically. The Indus valley plains in Pakistan make a distinct geographical feature as well, as do the arid Baluchistan mountains and plains, as do the deserts of Sindh-Rajasthan, as do the jungles of East India, Bangladesh, Myanmar etc.

You are picking the geographical boundaries you prefer and arguing that because the were lumped into one regional classification, that enforces the 'nation' argument.

Why should we stop with the classification of the sub-continent, why not argue for nationhood on the basis of 'Asia'?

That is a regional classification based on geographical features/boundaries as well after all.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

But currently Pan-Islamic nationhood argues for a nation based on a unification of ALL Muslim lands - does that imply that all Muslim lands are a single nation, just because the idea exists?

 

[Flintlock]

^Its hardly arbitrary. "India" as a distinct cultural and geographical entity has been known for most of written history.

There's a reason why outsiders referred to it as "Hindustan" in its entirety and not "Xistan" and "Yistan" and "Zistan".

Ultimately its perception, and the perception both inside and outside India was that we were a separate entity from the rest of the known world.

There's a reason why Indian writers throughout history referred only to greeks, persians and central asians as "foreigners" and not some other tribes within India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^Its hardly arbitrary. "India" as a distinct cultural and geographical entity has been known for most of written history.

There's a reason why outsiders referred to it as "Hindustan" in its entirety and not "Xistan" and "Yistan" and "Zistan".

Ultimately its perception, and the perception both inside and outside India was that we were a separate entity from the rest of the known world.

There's a reason why Indian writers throughout history referred only to greeks, persians and central asians as "foreigners" and not some other tribes within India

But 'Asia' has been known as a 'distinct geographical and cultural entity' for even longer that the 'regional sub-classification of India'.

It is arbitrary that you do not go for nationhood on the larger entity of 'Asia', nor the smaller entities of 'Pashtun, Punjabi, Sindhi, Benagali, Tamil etc, but rather an arbitrary choice that fits a modern nationalism.

 

[Flintlock]

But 'Asia' has been known as a 'distinct geographical and cultural entity' for even longer that the 'regional sub-classification of India'.

It is arbitrary that you do not go for nationhood on the larger entity of 'Asia', nor the smaller entities of 'Pashtun, Punjabi, Sindhi, Benagali, Tamil etc, but rather an arbitrary choice that fits a modern nationalism.

Why should I go for Asian nationhood, when the Asians themselves don't see themselves as one nation?

Very strange argument.

 

[ju87]

But you are arbitrarily defining a region, even geographically. The Indus valley plains in Pakistan make a distinct geographical feature as well, as do the arid Baluchistan mountains and plains, as do the deserts of Sindh-Rajasthan, as do the jungles of East India, Bangladesh, Myanmar etc.

You are picking the geographical boundaries you prefer and arguing that because the were lumped into one regional classification, that enforces the 'nation' argument.

Why should we stop with the classification of the sub-continent, why not argue for nationhood on the basis of 'Asia'?

That is a regional classification based on geographical features/boundaries as well after all.

The geographical boundaries I mentioned have indeed shaped the culture and people of the "region" (as you call it) of India. In the medieval times, it was a sin for a Hindu to travel beyond the Indus, while the Himalayas and the northeastern jungles marked a physical boundary between Mongoloid and Caucasoid peoples. The deserts of Baluchistan were a definite barrier to any invasion of India in a way that your example, the Indus valley plains are not.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Why should I go for Asian nationhood, when the Asians themselves don't see themselves as one nation?

Very strange argument.

And the Pakistanis, Sri Lankans and Bangladeshis do not see themselves as one nation either - nor is there any evidence that the peoples of South Asia, bar a few politicians and scholars/thinkers here and there, historically ever thought of themselves as a nation, until the ideas of India and Pakistan came about.

And that is what I am getting at - it is people who define nationhood - and the only evidence we have of people defining nationhood in South Asia is evidence that points to multiple nations, not one.

 

[Flintlock]

And the Pakistanis, Sri Lankans and Bangladeshis do not see themselves as one nation either - nor is there any evidence that the peoples of South Asia, bar a few politicians and scholars/thinkers here and there, historically ever thought of themselves as a nation, until the ideas of India and Pakistan came about.

And that is what I am getting at - it is people who define nationhood - and the only evidence we have of people defining nationhood in South Asia is evidence that points to multiple nations, not one.

But nationalism itself is a modern development, so naturally one wouldn't see examples of nationalism before the development of Indian and Pakistani nationalism.

Obviously people define nationhood, and when countries are formed and sustained without major conflicts, that is ample proof that nationhood exists.

In any case, "nationhood" itself is a western construct. The people of India have always seen themselves as one entity, united by their beliefs, traditions and outlook towards life. This may not exactly fit the modern definition of "nation", but the written and oral historical record in India shows that Indians considered themselves as a separate entity from the "foreigners".

The earliest records in India show a clear distinction between the "civilized" and the "barbarians", and most of the time, the "barbarians" are mentioned as being from somewhere west of the Indus.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The geographical boundaries I mentioned have indeed shaped the culture and people of the "region" (as you call it) of India. In the medieval times, it was a sin for a Hindu to travel beyond the Indus, while the Himalayas and the northeastern jungles marked a physical boundary between Mongoloid and Caucasoid peoples. The deserts of Baluchistan were a definite barrier to any invasion of India in a way that your example, the Indus valley plains are not.

They haven't kep the culture isolated in those boundaries, nor have they prevented the melding of cultures both inside and outside those boundaries.

The Pashtun are settled on both sides of forbidding mountainous terrain as are the Baluch, and cultures flow and steadily change, not abruptly (as I pointed out already). Islam and Arabs crossed from both land and sea into the subcontinent.

The isolation you speak of does not exist - South Asia is diverse and it shares common threads within, and without - to both East and West - it is the nature of human settlement and movement.

As I said to Flint - it is people that define nationhood, and they have spoken in favor of multiple nations in South Asia.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The people of India have always seen themselves as one entity, united by their beliefs, traditions and outlook towards life.

If that were true then the argument we are having would have long been over. That is precisely what I have questioned. Seeing yourself as 'one entity' is analogous to modern nationhood, and there is absolutely no evidence that was the case historically.

 

[Flintlock]

If that were true then the argument we are having would have long been over. That is precisely what I have questioned. Seeing yourself as 'one entity' is analogous to modern nationhood, and there is absolutely no evidence that was the case historically.

Not necessarily. There are various ways in which a people can see themselves as one, and as different from outsiders, and it doesn't have to fit the exact definition of "nationhood" in order to be recognized.

 

[ju87]

Not necessarily. There are various ways in which a people can see themselves as one, and as different from outsiders, and it doesn't have to fit the exact definition of "nationhood" in order to be recognized.

Case in point being the Ummah? Not accounting for pan-Islamism of course.

The Pashtun are settled on both sides of forbidding mountainous terrain as are the Baluch, and cultures flow and steadily change, not abruptly (as I pointed out already). Islam and Arabs crossed from both land and sea into the subcontinent.

The isolation you speak of does not exist - South Asia is diverse and it shares common threads within, and without - to both East and West - it is the nature of human settlement and movement.

Which is why the traditional boundary of India was considered to be the Indus - EAST of Baluchistan. I have no doubt the Baluchi people are influenced by Iran more than India, they are different and so are the Pashtuns. A crude way to put it would be that they both look different from Indians east of the Indus in general. I never said the subcontinent was isolated culturally, just demographically, since about 1500 BC.

 

[deltacamelately]

Correct, and that process truly started in 1947 for both countries, before then, the "shared identity" was a result of a shared occupation and desire to rid ourselves of that occupation. Notice how quickly that "shared identity" fell apart, when the British decided to leave, and millions wanted a nation of their own. I doubt your claim of "a building of Indian identity over centuries" was a widespread ideal amongst the masses of the different nations of the subcontinent

AM,
My expectation from you are higher. If somebody thinks that present day India wants to somehow reclaim Pakistan, I for once will call him a paranoid. However, and with reference to your above statement, let us remind ourselves that bulk of the muslims didn't opt for Pakistan and remained entwined in the nationhood called India. If the present day Pakistanis really want to diffrentiate themselves from the present day Indians and claim their ancestory to the Vedic Sanatan Dharmis, to establish that the Indians are of a different and probably lower stock (something being taught to the new breed), the best way is to opt for a genetic test and demarcation. Unfortunately, and I've mentioned this in someother thread, the genetic demarcation doesn't exist and both these people share the same gene pool namely the R-2, Y-Chromosome Haplogroup, characterized by the genetic marker M124.

Please, let us not delude ourselves and teach our offsprings a distorted history. India might not have been a single country all the time. The Mauryans, Guptas, Marathas, Sikhs, Mughals and lastly the British did bring most of the areas under a common flag, but the important thing is that India did exist as a civilization meandering and changing with time. Your ancestors were our ancestors otherwise the genetic marker couldn't been same. We retained most of our ancestors civilizational and culturo-religious practices, you abondoned them post 712 and embraced a newer, foreign religion and customs, but that is a change of lifestyle and way of worshipnot a change of your bloodline. The partition was a political decission and demarcation, not a genetic one. A Punjabi/Sindhi/Mohajir Pakistani has more in common with say a Allahabadi, Bhopali or a Hyderabadi then a Persian or even an Arab. Visit WAB, you will find my photo album there with photos of my wife and son. Watch them keenly and see the difference. Know what? My wife's grandfather hails from Lahore and her grandmother hails from Pindi, both are settled in Mumbai and with the allmighty's grace, keeping healthy even at this age.

AM, let's not teach our children a history that is erronous and sow, hatred, complex and a sense of enemity. Enough damage has already been done by our previous generations, let's salvage some atleast.

regards,

 

[rubyjackass]

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".

Clearly it is not that just the first chinese kingdom discovered is called China now. The discovery is not a prerequisite.

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?

I was pointing out that culture evolves as settlers mingle with locals and rulers change. The culture which is a totality of all these is now called the 'Indian culture'.

Tamil, Gujarathi and Assamese may not be similar. People of these places got ruled by people who believed that they are Indians and started accepting themselves as Indians. These people spread this Indianness to their conquests. This kind of transitive property caused the shape of present India.

 

[UnitedPak]

@Flintlock

I have given you plenty of examples of regions and kingdoms entirely in Pakistan. Starting from the Indus valley, to Porus kingdom, Ghandara, to the countless of provinces and princely states we saw before and during the British Empire. Yet you still preach this imaginary nationhood of the subcontinent. There wasnt any.
The British conquered each province one by one, and it took them 100s of years. At independance there was around 600 Princely states with their own rulers, and even then a lot of them wanted complete independance.

Yet you have decided to ignore all these regions, and make random claims about geographical boundaries being the borders of this India.

You have also nicely ignored by arguments about the cultures of North India, East India and South India. If these cultures are not similar, what are the chances pre Islamic Pakistani culture would be similar to this "Indian culture" you speak of.

Also note your claims on pre Islamic Pakistani culture and the borders of Ancient India are all based on assumptions and ignore the realities the subcontinent.