Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[rubyjackass]

@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.

The world would have had 600 more countries then
All you can do is that India managed its unity admirably.

^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.

I consider this a winner.

 

[UnitedPak]

The world would have had 600 more countries then
All you can do is that India managed its unity admirably.

So are you denying that there were 600 princely states? Or are you just amused by big numbers?

Your attitude doesn't change the realities of the subcontinent. There were countless of provinces and princely states.

 

[rubyjackass]

So are you denying that there were 600 princely states? Or are you just amused by big numbers?

Your attitude doesn't change the realities of the subcontinent. There were countless of provinces and princely states.

Just amused by big numbers. Do you know how many countries there are now?

Nobody disagrees there were so many provinces, 545 I think. Indian textbooks clearly state the number. I forgot it.

Everybody acknowledges this fact. Actually Indians feel proud that they managed to stay together.

So what is the point of this fuss now?

Look at the realities of the sub-continent NOW.

 

[roadrunner]

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.

This is all bogus.

First you say Pakistan is India's to "reclaim". It's not India's to reclaim, it never was. This is proven time and time again.

Genetics. You pull up a certain haplogroup marker, M124. Before commenting on something so bullishly, why not understand wat it is you are commenting on? There are many differnt haplogroups that characterize a population. R2 is just one, it means very little since R2 is found in high numbers in Kurdistani people - these are completely distinct to Indians in appearance, and in language. Taking data from wiki or from some Indian researchers usually will give errors since I've found Indian wiki pages and Indian researchers to be among the worst for falsifying data. R2's origins are most likely to be in central asia, as Spencer Wells states. If you want to group the people of the subcontinent into genetic clusters, the Pakistani groups do not fall into the same group as the Indian ones.

There is some overlap between some Pakistani groups and upper caste Northwest Indian groups, but these form a very small percentage of the Indian population.

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.

The genetic markers of some Africans from the subsahara are shared with some blonde haired Europeans. Would you classify them as the same race? If you would, you have no idea how the study of these genetic markers works.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

I consider this a winner.

In the context of the modern Indian state, which is precisely the argument Flint has made, certainly.

And the exact same argument applies to when Pakistan became a nation, with slightly different timelines of course.

The post does not in anyway validate the argument for nationhood beyond the political movements and ideology established as British rule was waning.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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,

Delta,

I am not sure whether you understood my post.

The context is of negating this myth of some 'Indian nation' prior to the political activism in the waning days of the British.

As for cultural similarities, any set of people will share characteristics with another set of people close to them. To quote my response to Ju again:

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?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

The way you are trying to define nationhood is similar to the argument of Ummah, except that unlike the pan-Islamic nation idea, there is no evidence that the overwhelming majority of the people of the sub-continent believed in a 'united entity'.

As I mentioned before, just because the idea exists among some political thinkers and scholars does not make the argument of 'nationhood', for the Islamic world or the subcontinent, a valid argument.

 

[Flintlock]

The way you are trying to define nationhood is similar to the argument of Ummah, except that unlike the pan-Islamic nation idea, there is no evidence that the overwhelming majority of the people of the sub-continent believed in a 'united entity'.

As I mentioned before, just because the idea exists among some political thinkers and scholars does not make the argument of 'nationhood', for the Islamic world or the subcontinent, a valid argument.

Then why do Indian texts (pre-Islamic) make a clear distinction between themselves and the 'barbarians', and why are those 'barbarians' always from outside the Indian subcontinent?

Why do they mean when they write 'Jambudweepa', 'Bharata' or 'Aryavarta'? Jee, I wonder.

From: Vishnu Purana (2.3.1)

uttaraṃ yatsamudrasya himādreścaiva dakṣiṇam
varṣaṃ tadbhārataṃ nāma bhā***ī yatra santatiḥ

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।
"The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."

Aryadesa (or Aryadesha) or Arya Nadu (or Ariya Nadu) are names that have been used by scholars to describe India.

Aryadesh was used by the Chinese traveler to India, I-Tsing who used the term to refer to all of India.

Tamil poet Bharathi called India Arya Nadu in his poetry. Arya means noble and "desa" or "nadu" mean land.

Jambudvipa

There is a story in Jain mythology and in Hindu and Buddhist texts as well that describe Jambudvipa being one of the seven islands/continents of the world. It is possible that perhaps "island" is used to refer to India because India in one time was a separate Indian Plate. Perhaps the phrase is used in the manner that the land of India is still an island in between the Indus River and the rest of the Asian Plate. Jambudvipa is also addressed in Buddhist mythology and in some he is addresses as the ruler over entire Jambudvipa and in one, "He reigned over a quarter of the land of Jambudvipa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_India

As I said, it was an idea of oneness, not the same as "nationhood", or for that matter the "ummah", but a uniquely Indian concept.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Then why do Indian texts (pre-Islamic) make a clear distinction between themselves and the 'barbarians', and why are those 'barbarians' always from outside the Indian subcontinent?

Why do they mean when they write 'Jambudweepa', 'Bharata' or 'Aryavarta'? Jee, I wonder.

As I said, it was an idea of oneness, not the same as "nationhood", or for that matter the "ummah", but a uniquely Indian concept.

It doesn't matter what some texts say, and how you claim the Indian idea is 'different' - it is similar in that it is something on paper, as is the pan-Islamic nation concept, based on verses in the Quran used to justify this unity.

The only thing that matters is what the people think, and there is no evidence that beyond a few scholars and texts, the people of he subcontinent ever viewed themselves as a 'nation'.

 

[roadrunner]

Actually there's proof that the people of the Ganges never considered the people of the Indus as a part of their own for millenia. All this from the Hindu scriptures too. There's some horrible stuff about the people of Pakistan in there. The references are specifically to the people of Pakistan as well!

 

[Flintlock]

It doesn't matter what some texts say, and how you claim the Indian idea is 'different' - it is similar in that it is something on paper, as is the pan-Islamic nation concept, based on verses in the Quran used to justify this unity.

The only thing that matters is what the people think, and there is no evidence that beyond a few scholars and texts, the people of he subcontinent ever viewed themselves as a 'nation'.

My friend, I am not arguing that ancient Indians viewed themselves as one nation. That would be absurd because the concept of "nation" itself is defined in western terms.

There were many things which differentiated ancient India from the outside - common beliefs about purity, ethics and religion primarily, and cultural aspects as well.

These "few scholars and texts" were the written by the commentators of the age, and its quite obvious that they represent the views and beliefs of the time they were written.

Not to mention that the Vishnu Puran is one of the most important Ancient Indian texts, known and used all over India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari.

 

[Flintlock]

Actually there's proof that the people of the Ganges never considered the people of the Indus as a part of their own for millenia. All this from the Hindu scriptures too. There's some horrible stuff about the people of Pakistan in there. The references are specifically to the people of Pakistan as well!

Really! Can you quote some of that stuff?

 

[rubyjackass]

The post does not in anyway validate the argument for nationhood beyond the political movements and ideology established as British rule was waning.

The people provided the validity.

I am sure you will be as proud if your country emerged from those many provinces.?

 

[deltacamelately]

Delta,

I am not sure whether you understood my post.

The context is of negating this myth of some 'Indian nation' prior to the political activism in the waning days of the British.

AM,

The idea of an Indian nation definitely arose somewhere after the 1857 Revolt. And the idea of an independent Pakistan, i.e. a homeland for muslims rose somewhere in the 1920s, so what do you think your ancestors were fighting for before the 20s? The answer is we all were fighting for a nationhood, free from the British. What transpired between Congress and Muslim League or to that effect between Jinnah and Nehru is a different history, otherwise both Jinnah and Nehru were fighting for a single cause, i.e. an Indian independence.

As for cultural similarities, any set of people will share characteristics with another set of people close to them. To quote my response to Ju again:

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?

AM,
If you are happy differentiating yourselves from the Indians, so be it. I don't want to enter into a pi$$ing contest. However, read any researcher's, not necessarily Indian, work and that would tell you that North Indians and the Punjabi and Sindhi Pakistanis are ethinically indistiniguishable and have more in common than with Balochis, Pashtoons, Hazaras, Ujbeks, Tajikhs or Persians. Your ancestory isn't Turkik or Persian. But then its your identity and your decission, whom you want to be associated with.

 

[UnitedPak]

AM,

AM,
If you are happy differentiating yourselves from the Indians, so be it. I don't want to enter into a pi$ contest. However, read any researcher's, not necessarily Indian, work and that would tell you that North Indians and the Punjabi and Sindhi Pakistanis are ethinically indistiniguishable and have more in common than with Balochis, Pashtoons, Hazaras, Ujbeks, Tajikhs or Persians. Your ancestory isn't Turkik or Persian. But then its your identity and your decission, whom you want to be associated with.

Nobody is denying similarities between ethnic group. Every neighbouring ethnic group in the world has similarities. But your ideas of "Indian ethnic groups" are nonsensical and all based on colonial invasions.
Note my use of the word similarities, but you are claiming they are "indistinguishable".

"North Indians" are not an ethnic group.

Lets use real facts for a change:

Punjab and Kashmir valley being the only regions actually partitioned, and people on both sides can be said to be indistinguishable. But the rest of India has as much similarity to Pakistanis as any other neighbouring countries in the world.
Any one else in the world making as much fuss as Indians over normal neighbouring links?

The idea of focussing on Indian Punjab, and occupied Kashmir Valley to define "Indian" identity shows a lot of bias.
Any real expert wont create his own groups like "north Indians", but use already existing groups like Sindhis, Punjabis, Kashmiris, Gujaratis, Biharis etc etc.