Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[Vinod2070]

The fact is India and Pakistan's is a unique case in the world.

We have a very different perception of the common history. I see the same arguments being recycled multiple times from both sides for the most part.

I will say that if you feel a part of the Muslim history of India when much of it happened on the modern India's territory, why should the reverse be such a surprise. Especially when we talk of pre-Islamic history.

 

[UnitedPak]

The fact is India and Pakistan's is a unique case in the world.

We have a very different perception of the common history. I see the same arguments being recycled multiple times from both sides for the most part.

I will say that if you feel a part of the Muslim history of India when much of it happened on the modern India's territory, why should the reverse be such a surprise. Especially when we talk of pre-Islamic history.

Pakistani pre-Islamic history was not shared. But of course Indians can be proud of what they consider Hindu history, as long as they don't claim everything for themselves. Pre-Islamic in Pakistan doesn't automatically mean it belongs to Indians.

 

[Contrarian]

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.

Each state in India has a lot of autonomy. Constitution allows each state to be run by its own laws within the framework of the constitution. Thus since you mostly interact with North Indians, they consider themselves as India. Talk to someone from Tamil Nadu or Andhra Pradesh, he will call himself as a Tamil as well as an Indian.

India is a Union. Case in point-this freedom enjoyed by each state to develop its own traditional culture and language is the real reason why India is together. The state has a CM which is elected by the people of that state. The State is not run by someone who is mandated from Delhi.

 

[cefarix]

I didn't read all the posts on this thread because it is so long, but I just want to add this to discussion: I do consider myself an Indian, and an Indian Muslim. Not Indian as India the country, but Indian because Pakistan is an Indian country. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal - these are all Indian countries, part of the Indian subcontinent. It just so happens that there is also a country called India.

It is kind of like Europe, except there is no country in Europe called Europe. Since "India" today refers to the nation-state India, we have to refer to our region as the Indian subcontinent to differentiate the two explicitly. But other than this subtle but very important distinction, I am proud to be Indian.

 

[UnitedPak]

I didn't read all the posts on this thread because it is so long, but I just want to add this to discussion: I do consider myself an Indian, and an Indian Muslim. Not Indian as India the country, but Indian because Pakistan is an Indian country. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal - these are all Indian countries, part of the Indian subcontinent. It just so happens that there is also a country called India.

It is kind of like Europe, except there is no country in Europe called Europe. Since "India" today refers to the nation-state India, we have to refer to our region as the Indian subcontinent to differentiate the two explicitly. But other than this subtle but very important distinction, I am proud to be Indian.

I would suggest that you at least read this post:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...electing-name-india-1947-a-16.html#post268503

The meaning of the term "India" has changed. It only has one meaning now. I think you meant to say South Asian, or Indian subcontinental, but not Indian.
Like I said, read at least the last few pages. They are quite informative.

 

[cefarix]

I would suggest that you at least read this post:
http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...electing-name-india-1947-a-16.html#post268503

The meaning of the term "India" has changed. It only has one meaning now. I think you meant to say South Asian, or Indian subcontinental, but not Indian.
Like I said, read at least the last few pages. They are quite informative.

Well, what I'm saying is that true[/i] meaning of Indian is Indian Subcontinental. It includes Pakistan, India (I should say Bharat), Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal. But it's true, today, "India" 99.9% of the time means India the country. But perhaps "Indian" still has a slightly looser meaning I think.

In any case, I don't identify myself as a citizen of Republic of India, but as citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Ethnically speaking though, my family comes from Hyderabad, India, since that's where my grandparents are from, but they moved to Pakistan in the 50s and 60s. Myself, I was born in the UK, but I've lived most of my life in the US. But I keep in close touch with Pakistan and recently I was there for about 4 years.

Also, responding to that post you linked to... it is valid to say you are South Asian or Indian Subcontinental, even if there was historically no single South Asian or Indian Subcontinental Empire or State. Just look at Europe. So many different ethnic groups, so many different countries, nations, states, empires throughout the ages. In fact, Europe has NEVER been united. Yet Europeans are okay with calling themselves European and we call them European too.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I didn't read all the posts on this thread because it is so long, but I just want to add this to discussion: I do consider myself an Indian, and an Indian Muslim. Not Indian as India the country, but Indian because Pakistan is an Indian country. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal - these are all Indian countries, part of the Indian subcontinent. It just so happens that there is also a country called India.

It is kind of like Europe, except there is no country in Europe called Europe. Since "India" today refers to the nation-state India, we have to refer to our region as the Indian subcontinent to differentiate the two explicitly. But other than this subtle but very important distinction, I am proud to be Indian.

You are a bit behind the times then - Pakistan, Sri Lanka etc. are all South Asian countries, and there is nothing wrong with being 'proud to be a South Aisan', but there is a reason why we are referred to as 'South Asian' instead of 'Indian' nations - the meaning of the name 'India' has long since changed.

Another way to state it would be 'Indian-subcontinental nation', which is really too much of a mouthful.

Calling Pakistan an 'Indian nation' is simply incorrect today, though I understand that you are using 'India' in the context of the region of 'ancient India'.

Just too confusing to do it that way, when 'South Asian' conveys the meaning without the hassles and misinterpretations.

 

[cefarix]

Just too confusing to do it that way, when 'South Asian' conveys the meaning without the hassles and misinterpretations.

Well it depends who you are speaking to. Most Americans would think you are saying you are south Chinese/Japanese/Korean, because they think Asia = China/Japan/Korea

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well it depends who you are speaking to. Most Americans would think you are saying you are south Chinese/Japanese/Korean, because they think Asia = China/Japan/Korea

Rather that than ask me if their Yoga instructor or the 'Indian' doctor they see is a relative of mine ...

I think referring to ourselves as an "Indian' nation is even more confusing.

 

[Flintlock]

As far as I can see, Pakistan has spent most of its time trying to prove that it belongs in the middle-east.

No surprisingly, the yanks, who are less than blessed in their understanding of history, having none themselves, have branded Pakistan as a part of the "Greater Middle East".

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As far as I can see, Pakistan has spent most of its time trying to prove that it belongs in the middle-east.

I assume that you refer to the Pakistani state here - how so has it done what you say?

No surprisingly, the yanks, who are less than blessed in their understanding of history, having none themselves, have branded Pakistan as a part of the "Greater Middle East".

Ideologically Pakistan does fall into the 'Islamic crescent', and we also share commonalities (ethnic) with the Afghans and Iranians, so that grouping makes sense from a geo-political perspective.

 

[Flintlock]

Also, the meaning of the term "India" in the historical context has not changed at all. When we talk about the history of Pakistan, all the history books, literally ALL of them, refer to it as "Ancient India" (except the ones written in Pakistan, and among those, only the ones written after the Islamization of the syllabus in the late 70s)

The most recent BBC Documentary on Indian history also makes a clear distinction between "Ancient India", "India", and "Pakistan".

 

[Vinod2070]

I assume that you refer to the Pakistani state here - how so has it done what you say?

Ideologically Pakistan does fall into the 'Islamic crescent', and we also share commonalities (ethnic) with the Afghans and Iranians, so that grouping makes sense from a geo-political perspective.

What Flintock said is actually correct. At least after 1971, Bhutto said that Pakistan will turn it's back to India. Remember the Muslim leader's gathering and all that. That was an attempt to move Pakistan from South Asia to West Asia.

I think you guys realized later that it was not where you belonged and again became a part of the subcontinent. Return of the prodigal I will say.

Subah ka bhula... You are welcome back.

 

[cefarix]

Pakistan doesn't need to "move" anywhere to "prove" its association to Islam. Neither to the Middle East nor Greater Middle East nor West Asia nor Gulf States nor etc. The Muslim Ummah stretches from the west Atlantic coast of Africa to the Pacific Islands of East Asia, with smaller Muslim communities around the globe. And Pakistan represents 160 million Muslims of those 1.5 billion+ from South Asia/Indian Subcontinent. There are more Muslims in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh put together than there are in all the Arab countries put together, so if anything, maybe the Arab countries should be "moving" to South Asia

 

[Vinod2070]

That may be true. But you should know very well that in the Arab mind they are the only "first class" Muslims.