Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[Joe Shearer]

Joe, here is article by Mr Pradip Bhattacharya. The article is actually a review of a research work by Dr. James Mitchiner, former British Deputy High Commissioner in Kolkata. I read this article quite sometime ago and then completely forgot about it until I read your comments. Mr Bhattacharya makes some interesting points, although he seems to be taking the Puranas and associated texts as historical texts. Anyway, he states towards the end of his article;

The Yavanas (Greeks) are stated to have demolished the mud walls of Kusumadhvaja (Pataliputra) after approaching Saketa (Ayodhya) with Panchalas and Mathuras, following which there is anarchy. It goes on to say that the Yavanas will not remain here but are drawn away by war in their own realm. After their departure there will be seven great kings of Saketa. Thereafter, a mighty Shaka king raids Pushpanama (Pataliputra) and kills a quarter of the population including all the youngest men but is slain by the Kalinga king Shata and a group of Sabalas (Savaras).

<snip>

Patanjali mentions Saketa and Madhyamika being besieged by the Yavana. A series of Indo-Greek coins have been found at Dewas near Ujjain, supporting the Yavana presence in Malwa. The Besnagar Garuda pillar inscription of Yavana Heliodorus as an envoy from Taxila of king Antialkidas is dated to around 140 B.C. Kharavela’s inscription in Hathigumpha mentions his attacking Rajagriha and sending the Yavana king Dimita (Demetrios) packing to Mathura, showing a Greek presence in Magadha around the same time. Panchala “Mitra” coins have been found at Pataliputra and names ending with “mitra” in inscriptions at Bodh Gaya. All these substantiate the Yuga Purana’s account of a joint expedition of Yavanas, Panchalas and Mathuras. Mitichiner suggests that this occurred around 190 B.C. between the reigns of Shalishuka Maurya (c. 200 B.C.) and Pushyamitra Sunga (c. 187 B.C.) when the Indo-Greek king was either Euthydemos (230-190 B.C.) or Demetrios (205-190 B.C. as co-regent and 190-171 as king). The Yavanas were called away by some attack on the border such as the Antiochus III’s two year long siege of Euthydemos in Balkh , or the seccession of Sogdiana from Bactria around 190 B.C. This is also when the Maurya dynasty was extinguished by Pushyamitra.

All that remains is to explain the absence of any reference to Alexander’s invasion, about which all Puranas are silent. K.D. Sethna (Amal Kiran) made a valiant effort to plug this gap in his Ancient India in a New Light. But that is a different story.​

Interesting account, but.

It is off-topic, as it doesn't refer to roadrunner's specific proposition that the name India referred solely to the land mass currently described politically as Pakistan, therefore that the Republic of India has no right to the name India.

It is also not very original; the same material, based on examples in Patanjali and examples from the Puranas, are in every ancient Indian history college textbook. We already know that the 'viciously valiant Mlecchas' penetrated up to Kusumapura and occupied Mathura.

 

[amigo]

i think the name india was selected bcoz other alternate names such as bharat which was more or like is hinduized term & hindustan was given to it by foreign invaders(which means land of hindus). so selecting india was good for a secular country & society.

 

[roadrunner]

Even Today's Hindustan is renowned in the world thanks to Muslim Architecture spread across its landmass, the reason;

Every foreign dignitary ever visits Hindustan have a must visits of the these Marvelous Buildings i.e., Taj Mahal, Fatehpur Sikri etc as well. Just today Mr & Mrs. Sarkozy are completing their pilgrimage by fulfilling this tradition.

The 15th August National address by the PM of India is honoured not other than the historic Red Fort.

If we take out "Ancient Indus" and Medieval Muslims Rule from today's Hindustan the rest will be look like this

Very true, but the Taj Mahal etc is part of Bharat's history.

 

[roadrunner]

Instead of speculating on what may or may not have been said by Megasthenes, let's look at the original text, as we did at college, of which I have found an on-line fragment at
http://www.mssu.edu/projectsouthasi...reign_Views/GreekRoman/Megasthenes-Indika.htm

It will save me the bother of summarising the conclusions that he has come to, and it will save you asking if I really think so!

I have deleted the rest of a long post as it made little sense without my earlier comments printed therein. Please expect by tomorrow (partially) and day after (final bits and pieces) the following:

1. The balance of responses to your recent comments on page 25 in particular;
2. Some response to earlier comments of yours at the beginning of the thread - these are hoped to be addressed as a cogent mass, rather than comment by comment;
3. My suggestion for the situation that has been outlined.

I've read it. It's from where I'm deriving my conclusions partly.

 

[roadrunner]

There is a logical error here, as well as a factual error.

First, the factual part, or parts.

The knowledge of the Indus Valley revealed by, say, Herodotus, is surely not even comparable with that of Megasthenes.

You obviously do not know the importance of Herodotus versus Megasthenes in the Ancient Greek hierarchy. Herodotus was more important.

As for the others, they based their accounts on the accounts in turn of those who actually accompanied Alexander; they are effectively reporting based on others' reports. Please note that neither Pliny nor Strabo was a contemporary; Megasthenes, on the other hand, was in the Maurya court prior to 288 BC, and was quite possibly - being the trusted ambassador of the Alexandrian successor Seleukos, and the house-guest of the governor of Arachosia (I think; I am not sure of the province) - from the ranks of the middle-ranking generals or civilian officers or savants accompanying the expedition unless he had come out from Greece or Macedonia very late, after 323 BC.

So we have the near-contemporary account of Megasthenes, with considerable information about the court and about life and the environs of the court. Please recall his story of the 'dogs', which is clearly an account of Rhesus monkeys, distorted by the narration to him by narrators unfamiliar with Greek. We are all familiar with the habits of these monkey hordes, which come to the ground, accept with disdain all that interests them, reject with every appearance of contempt that which does not, and troop in and troop out of villages and towns. Megasthenes in a few words describes them perfectly, down to their physiognomy. What do we have in contrast from the other school, with their supposed intimate information about the Indus Valley?

So what? Megasthenes was in "India". Yes, he was the Ambassador at Taxilla (which is in Pakistan). It doesn't make any difference, as I'm already acknowledging that some (a small part), of modern day India was discovered at the time of Megasthenes (about 2,000 years ago). And my point again, most of "Indian history" occurred between 2,000 to 5,000 years before, when India was Pakistan only.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Ah, two for the price of one! And I thought that these bargains had stopped in Aladdin's time. Silly me.

There is a logical error here, as well as a factual error.

First, the factual part, or parts.

The knowledge of the Indus Valley revealed by, say, Herodotus, is surely not even comparable with that of Megasthenes.

You obviously do not know the importance of Herodotus versus Megasthenes in the Ancient Greek hierarchy. Herodotus was more important.

Well, if studying a paper on the Persian War and the Peloponnesian War, and getting the highest marks in my year in that paper counts, I do know a wee bit, just a little bit, mind you, about Greek history.

Before we go further, may I remind you that I am able to guide you and others interested through each and every battle and skirmish of the Persian War, and of the Peloponnesian War, to an extent and depth of detail which you will not find in contemporary Internet sources. My personal favourite is the Battle of Plataia, which is less referred to than other, more famous but less interesting from the military point of view, others such as Marathon, Thermopilai and Salamis (all from the Persian War). It would be correct to come to me for help on obscure parts of the Anabasis, or on the same author's treatise on Horsemanship. I am therefore fascinated to learn from you how Herodotus and Megasthenes must be comparatively viewed, and how to interpret their records!

Your remark could only have been made by someone completely confused by trying to follow the train of his own logic through its tortured paths. Permit me to refresh your memory.

Herodotus (since I am writing for an amateur column, it is more convenient to use the conventional Roman spelling, which will be recognised more readily; the correct transcription of his name is, however, Herodotos) wrote about the Persian War. He probably died in the last quarter of the 5th century BC, sometime between 425 BC and 400 BC, probably closer to the beginning than to the end of this quarter-century. He was described by the Roman orator Cicero as the "Father of History". He was described by his successor, Thucydides (Thoukydides) as a story-teller.

I hope you in turn are aware that of the two, Thucydides is by far the better historian; I hope, in fact, that you have read either or both of them, in which case such suggestions on my part would not be necessary.

The question here is not of whom among Herodotus and Megasthenes was considered the more important figure in the Ancient Greek hierarchy. Leaving aside the fact that there was actually no hierarchy, you are of course writing what you did with the full knowledge that one of them wrote, sitting in Greece, in the first half of the fifth century BC, sometime between 450 and 425 BC, and the other wrote after his ambassadorship to the places in question which was before 288 BC but not too far before.

I put it to you that the question is not of a mythical, manufactured hierarchy invented for the purposes of this argument by you, but of whether a remote look at a geography by an historian is of more weight than the accounts, the diplomatic report, to nod in the direction of Wikileaks, as it were, of an ambassador physically present in his reported location.

As for the others, they based their accounts on the accounts in turn of those who actually accompanied Alexander; they are effectively reporting based on others' reports. Please note that neither Pliny nor Strabo was a contemporary; Megasthenes, on the other hand, was in the Maurya court prior to 288 BC, and was quite possibly - being the trusted ambassador of the Alexandrian successor Seleukos, and the house-guest of the governor of Arachosia (I think; I am not sure of the province) - from the ranks of the middle-ranking generals or civilian officers or savants accompanying the expedition unless he had come out from Greece or Macedonia very late, after 323 BC.

So we have the near-contemporary account of Megasthenes, with considerable information about the court and about life and the environs of the court. Please recall his story of the 'dogs', which is clearly an account of Rhesus monkeys, distorted by the narration to him by narrators unfamiliar with Greek. We are all familiar with the habits of these monkey hordes, which come to the ground, accept with disdain all that interests them, reject with every appearance of contempt that which does not, and troop in and troop out of villages and towns. Megasthenes in a few words describes them perfectly, down to their physiognomy. What do we have in contrast from the other school, with their supposed intimate information about the Indus Valley?

So what? Megasthenes was in "India". Yes, he was the Ambassador at Taxilla (which is in Pakistan).

I am afraid that I have to correct you on this: he was actually at the capital, Pataliputra, which he spells quite recognisably as Patlibothra, not at the provincial seat, Taxila, which was in revolt more than once.

It doesn't make any difference, as I'm already acknowledging that some (a small part), of modern day India was discovered at the time of Megasthenes (about 2,000 years ago).

An excellent point. It has the weight, and the context, and the importance of a point.

You do realise that his account was of the capital on the Ganges in the ancient seat of the Mauryas, and the Nandas before them, Magadha? This is the equivalent of Ecbatana, the capital of Media, rather than the capitals of Persia.

You do also realise from my emphasised passage above that to get there, he had to travel from Arachosia, the Makran coast, probably from Kandahar, Alexandria in Arachosia, across the coastal peninsula, across the Indus, across Sindh, and then a very difficult passage probably marked by Ujjain (a Maurya stronghold) and up to the Ganges, probably meeting it around Allahabad, and then down river to Pataliputra, or up the river and to the Yamuna and then down to the Ganges, which was then easily navigable, down to Pataliputra?

Which brings us to the question of how much he saw of 'modern-day India' rather than 'Ancient India', both your rather charming essays at historical re-discovery.

You state that 'a small part' of modern-day India was known to Megasthenes. Is it your case that this middle aged Greek gentleman was a purdah-nashin?

And my point again, most of "Indian history" occurred between 2,000 to 5,000 years before, when India was Pakistan only.

Your points are truly shining brilliant spots of brightness. Unfortunately for us, you omitted joining them.

What in your opinion happened in India - modern-day India, to go along with your usage - between 2,000 years ago and today? I have listed a few, a very few items for your consideration earlier. Is it your case that none of them occurred, or is it your case that even if they occurred, they don't count, as they didn't happen in the Indus Valley?

On a purely off-topic matter: are you familiar with Mr. Washington Irving's story about the Catskill Mountains, in his book the Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent.? The thought occurs that this story may have inspired your ventures into history.

 

[Tameem]

The reason for Dr. Ambedkar agreeing to this phrasing was because of a widespread feeling among a section in the house that in the aftermath of victory over the colonial power, the departed master's terms and phrases should be avoided as far as possible.

Even within the Constituent Assembly, there was a distinct division of opinion between compulsive and radical revisionists, and an innately conservative body who wanted the least disturbance possible.

The naming of the republican democracy was therefore a compromise between the two: the radicals got their non-European version of the name, the conservatives, presiding over a constitution formation which was so largely dependent on English as a language for discussion and definition, got their traditional name.

The rest of that reported debate had not taken place in the way reported, as far as I know.

Exactly, That's the point the name "India" used by Europeans for thousands of years including The Sumarians as well Egyptions is all part of today's Pakistan for which the radicals of Indian constituent assembly knows very well and thats why are not agreed of to be used solely for their independent state for obvious reasons

Thanks for your affirmations in details.

 

[Joe Shearer]

<groan>

What have I done to suffer this @*&#163;&#163;&!?

Exactly, That's the point

No "exactly", and "That" is most certainly not "the point". My explanations and what you have stated below are totally unconnected in any manner, and adding a few excited words will convince nobody except yourself, your shadow in the mirror (if you have reached an age where you shave) and perhaps doting elder relatives, stunned by such expressions of forensic brilliance.

the name "India" used by Europeans for thousands of years including The Sumarians as well Egyptions

The name India, as you would have learnt if you had learnt to read, that is, if you had learnt to read the arguments of others, was used by neither Sumerians (or Sumarians, if you have decided in your wisdom to fiddle with their names as well - fortunately, none of them are left alive to object to your historical re-discoveries) nor Egyptians. There is no record that the Sumerians or the Egyptians knew of India, or any of the geography of South Asia.

...is all part of today's Pakistan

That is wholly a figment of the collective imagination of a very special section of 'today's Pakistan', towards which I am acquiring a decided partiality and affection due to the unrelenting good clean fun which it has provided over the past few days. This section, the forefathers of which insisted on the name Pakistan, not on the name India, when it had a choice and exercised that choice, not knowing that the future would be bleak for 'Pakistanis', due to the indiscipline and inability to conduct themselves with propriety and public order by their descendants, and rather more welcoming and warm for 'Indians' in climates abroad, now wish to appropriate the name officially. While I feel for those exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, the name is not ours to give. It was accorded to us, and we continue to use it as a matter of historical continuity and conservatism.

...for which the radicals of Indian constituent assembly knows very well

What you need to refer to is not an history text book but Wren and Martin.

and thats why are not agreed of to be used solely for their independent state for obvious reasons...

Definitely the influence of Wren and Martin missing in rather noticeable manner.

I regret to draw your attention to the facts, which are stated clearly and beyond the incomprehension of all but those determined to re-state a matter repeatedly in the manner in which they hope to see it turn out, regardless of petty distractions like facts or logic.

It was not the radicals, it was the conservatives, who did not want to disturb the widespread knowledge and conviction of the entire world that India referred to what they were referring to. Please read my note again, rather than using it as a coat-hanger. They had had all the time in the world to consider this matter, as Pakistan had made its own choice, NOT to call itself India, three years earlier.

I suggest, based on your excited and wholly misdirected interjection, that you stay away from difficult topics until you have learnt a little more grammar, a little more logic. Leave difficult and unpronounceable subjects like history alone until a more appropriate point of your scholastic development.

Of course, you are free to disregard my suggestions.

It occurs to me that the common entertainment in Ancient Rome, which well knew what India was in the 1st century BC, from the copious written evidence, was panem et circenses. Perhaps you are confident that someone else will supply the panem, and it would be unfair to quench the aroused hopes and expectations of the forum's readers.

 

[Tameem]

<groan>

What have I done to suffer this @*££&!?



No "exactly", and "That" is most certainly not "the point". My explanations and what you have stated below are totally unconnected in any manner, and adding a few excited words will convince nobody except yourself, your shadow in the mirror (if you have reached an age where you shave) and perhaps doting elder relatives, stunned by such expressions of forensic brilliance.

I ignore your tirade against my personality since I already accepted by myself in my earlier post that I am not an expert on the subject (If U read it fully).

The name India, as you would have learnt if you had learnt to read, that is, if you had learnt to read the arguments of others, was used by neither Sumerians (or Sumarians, if you have decided in your wisdom to fiddle with their names as well - fortunately, none of them are left alive to object to your historical re-discoveries) nor Egyptians. There is no record that the Sumerians or the Egyptians knew of India, or any of the geography of South Asia.

Sir, with thousands apologies we didn’t know what exactly the Sumerians called about for their trading counterparts in IVC but we does know an active relationships between the two at their prime time.
Quote
During 4300–3200 BCE of the chalcolithic period (copper age), the Indus Valley Civilization area shows ceramic similarities with southern Turkmenistan and northern Iran which suggest considerable mobility and trade. During the Early Harappan period (about 3200–2600 BCE), similarities in pottery, seals, figurines, ornaments, etc., document intensive caravan trade with Central Asia and the Iranian plateau.
Parpola 2005, pp. 2–3
Judging from the dispersal of Indus civilisation artifacts, the trade networks, economically, integrated a huge area, including portions of Afghanistan, the coastal regions of Persia, northern and western India, and Mesopotamia.
There was an extensive maritime trade network operating between the Harappan and Mesopotamian civilizations as early as the middle Harappan Phase, with much commerce being handled by "middlemen merchants from Dilmun" (modern Bahrain and Failaka located in the Persian Gulf).
Neyland, R. S. (1992). "The seagoing vessels on Dilmun seals". In Keith, D.H.; Carrell, T.L. Society for Historical Archaeology. pp. 68–74.
Unquote

Therefore, there should be a name in the dictionaries of Summaries about their trading partners live around the Great River towards their east. Since we have an ancient name of this river as Sindhu, We can assume hypothetically that this name would be derived from some earlier name of that river similarly know around it at the age of both civilizations.

That is wholly a figment of the collective imagination of a very special section of 'today's Pakistan', towards which I am acquiring a decided partiality and affection due to the unrelenting good clean fun which it has provided over the past few days. This section, the forefathers of which insisted on the name Pakistan, not on the name India, when it had a choice and exercised that choice, not knowing that the future would be bleak for 'Pakistanis', due to the indiscipline and inability to conduct themselves with propriety and public order by their descendants, and rather more welcoming and warm for 'Indians' in climates abroad, now wish to appropriate the name officially. While I feel for those exposed to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, the name is not ours to give. It was accorded to us, and we continue to use it as a matter of historical continuity and conservatism.

You are more than welcome to have an independent view about Pakistan & Pakistanis whatever it suits according to your upbringing, academic level or prejudice since we are living in the age of democracy where people are agree to disagree on anything.

What you need to refer to is not an history text book but Wren and Martin.

Definitely the influence of Wren and Martin missing in rather noticeable manner.

By emphasizing Wren and Martin you cannot ignore the forceful substance in my argument for which you have no answer, so accept it wholeheartedly instead of twisting it towards your academic brilliance.

I regret to draw your attention to the facts, which are stated clearly and beyond the incomprehension of all but those determined to re-state a matter repeatedly in the manner in which they hope to see it turn out, regardless of petty distractions like facts or logic.

It was not the radicals, it was the conservatives, who did not want to disturb the widespread knowledge and conviction of the entire world that India referred to what they were referring to.

So, you mean conservatives don’t want to disturb the widespread conviction about India by proposing a name totally different of it and it’s not the radicals alone who have deep prejudice towards the name India derived from IVC. I, accept your argument in totality.

Please read my note again, rather than using it as a coat-hanger.

Your demeaning words don't hurts me that much than your ignorance and twisting of facts to your meaning alone.

They had had all the time in the world to consider this matter, as Pakistan had made its own choice, NOT to call itself India, three years earlier.

Why should we?? the IVC is not the only Civilizations our land produced throughout the known history. Our name is perfect.

I suggest, based on your excited and wholly misdirected interjection, that you stay away from difficult topics until you have learnt a little more grammar, a little more logic. Leave difficult and unpronounceable subjects like history alone until a more appropriate point of your scholastic development.

Of course, you are free to disregard my suggestions.

Or I can disregard your suggestion “partially” because I believe in trying, struggle to be identified by the others amongst the bests, not assuming arrogantly by own as the best.

It occurs to me that the common entertainment in Ancient Rome, which well knew what India was in the 1st century BC, from the copious written evidence, was panem et circenses. Perhaps you are confident that someone else will supply the panem, and it would be unfair to quench the aroused hopes and expectations of the forum's readers.

Just, checks the Thank buttons you received on you’re twisting of facts from your countrymen alone like swamps and know fully who is playing for the galleries alone.

 

[Tameem]

Very true, but the Taj Mahal etc is part of Bharat's history.

Of Course Sir, But my emphasis is only on Bold Muslim Signature on it and on the facts that we are trying to preserve the Brand name "Babur" and they are destroying it through their SC of whatever is left of it, Isn't it an irony of history as well.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I ignore your tirade against my personality since I already accepted by myself in my earlier post that I am not an expert on the subject (If U read it fully).

Let us address the subject, rather than get diverted into personalities, if that is what you wish.

Sir, with thousands apologies we didn’t know what exactly the Sumerians called about for their trading counterparts in IVC but we does know an active relationships between the two at their prime time.
Quote
During 4300–3200 BCE of the chalcolithic period (copper age), the Indus Valley Civilization area shows ceramic similarities with southern Turkmenistan and northern Iran which suggest considerable mobility and trade. During the Early Harappan period (about 3200–2600 BCE), similarities in pottery, seals, figurines, ornaments, etc., document intensive caravan trade with Central Asia and the Iranian plateau.
Parpola 2005, pp. 2–3
Judging from the dispersal of Indus civilisation artifacts, the trade networks, economically, integrated a huge area, including portions of Afghanistan, the coastal regions of Persia, northern and western India, and Mesopotamia.
There was an extensive maritime trade network operating between the Harappan and Mesopotamian civilizations as early as the middle Harappan Phase, with much commerce being handled by "middlemen merchants from Dilmun" (modern Bahrain and Failaka located in the Persian Gulf).
Neyland, R. S. (1992). "The seagoing vessels on Dilmun seals". In Keith, D.H.; Carrell, T.L. Society for Historical Archaeology. pp. 68–74.
Unquote

Therefore, there should be a name in the dictionaries of Summaries about their trading partners live around the Great River towards their east. Since we have an ancient name of this river as Sindhu, We can assume hypothetically that this name would be derived from some earlier name of that river similarly know around it at the age of both civilizations.

With a million apologies, this does not hold up to close inspection.

1. There were contacts between the Sumerians, the other civilisations of Mesopotamia, or of Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Afghanistan) on the one hand, and the Indus Valley, but they did not call the river the Indus, the Hindu, the Sindhu or anything like that; that name came only with the Greeks.
2. They may have had their own name for the great river;
3. It is impossible that this name was Sindhu, for the following reasons:
3a. Sindhu was a name used by the Indo-Aryans from well before they themselves saw the great river;
3b. Sindhu therefore could not have been derived from any earlier name of the great river, because it was in use with the Indo-Aryans well before they knew of the existence of the great river.

QED

You are more than welcome to have an independent view about Pakistan & Pakistanis whatever it suits according to your upbringing, academic level or prejudice since we are living in the age of democracy where people are agree to disagree on anything.

Is it then your case that you were willing to name your country something else other than Pakistan?

I am pleased to see that you are following your own advice and staying impersonal.

By emphasizing Wren and Martin you cannot ignore the forceful substance in my argument for which you have no answer, so accept it wholeheartedly instead of twisting it towards your academic brilliance.

Unfortunately, in this section, only a fragment of ungrammatical language was under discussion, so where did you find a forceful substance in your argument? And where was the question of finding an answer to an argument not yet made? And what was the twisting it to my academic brilliance involved in pointing out grammatical errors?

Again, congratulations on avoiding the personal.

So, you mean conservatives don’t want to disturb the widespread conviction about India by proposing a name totally different of it and it’s not the radicals alone who have deep prejudice towards the name India derived from IVC. I, accept your argument in totality.

I am quite happy with the wording that I used originally. You have only to agree or to disagree with it. It is not open to you to re-interpret my statement according to your convenience, and seek empty solace in a seeming alignment. There is no alignment, except in your view.

Your demeaning words don't hurts me that much than your ignorance and twisting of facts to your meaning alone.

My ignorance has already been tested by better people than you. Roadrunner, for instance, began this argument not recently but with his first post on this forum. It was you who confessed that you were not an expert. As it happens, I am an expert.

And, of course, more displays of your admirable refraining from personality based attacks.

Why should we?? the IVC is not the only Civilizations our land produced throughout the known history. Our name is perfect.

Ah, so it is no longer a question of your right name, merely a desire to deprive others of theirs, by any means possible.

Do you find anything uplifting and worthwhile in such a project?

Or I can disregard your suggestion “partially” because I believe in trying, struggle to be identified by the others amongst the bests, not assuming arrogantly by own as the best.

I wish you luck, whichever language you finally choose with which to struggle on. Do make the right choice. The sentence above shows that there is still scope for changing your mind.

Just, checks the Thank buttons you received on you’re twisting of facts from your countrymen alone like swamps and know fully who is playing for the galleries alone.

Since you have a vast amount of curiousity about my thanks buttons, do your own counting. Also look through my posts and see who have been most forthcoming. You will be surprised.

 

[eastwatch]

Of Course Sir, But my emphasis is only on Bold Muslim Signature on it and on the facts that we are trying to preserve the Brand name "Babur" and they are destroying it through their SC of whatever is left of it, Isn't it an irony of history as well.

India is destroying the muslim signature on its history by writing only a 10-page chapter to cover the entire muslim era in its school text books. But, Indians are fond of telling us that they are secular.

 

[aviator]

India is destroying the muslim signature on its history by writing only a 10-page chapter to cover the entire muslim era in its school text books. But, Indians are fond of telling us that they are secular.

Thats because you over estimate yourself. Indian history textbooks dont teach about Hinduism or Buddhism or Sikhism, so its not just about your ideology.

As far as your opinion is concerned, if India fully tells history of Islam in India then it is going to only bring hate for Indian muslims, something pseudo secular Indian politicians try to avoid. I am sure not even a single Indian (especially non-muslim) are gonna take actions from islamic invasion to Direct Action Day lightly.

Before you point finger at India check four fingers that point towards you.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Thats because you over estimate yourself. Indian history textbooks dont teach about Hinduism or Buddhism or Sikhism, so its not just about your ideology.

As far as your opinion is concerned, if India fully tells history of Islam in India then it is going to only bring hate for Indian muslims, something pseudo secular Indian politicians try to avoid. I am sure not even a single Indian (especially non-muslim) are gonna take actions from islamic invasion to Direct Action Day lightly.

Before you point finger at India check four fingers that point towards you.

I wish you had ruined an otherwise useful post by using the phrase pseudo secular. This is a piece of political jargon used by the Sangh Parivar as an offensive way of addressing the Congress and leftists.

It seems to me that it would be best not to bring in politics if possible. It also seems to me that the reason for assigning a certain number of pages to a subject or to a period should be linked to the years a subject or period spanned, as well as the amount of information we have about it. Please consider that even excluding the Indus Valley Civilisation, we have from 1700 BC to 1260 AD, nearly 3,000 years, for ancient and early mediaeval periods, described by the British as Ancient India or Hindu India (both wrong); from 1260 AD to 1857 AD, nearly 600 years, for Mediaeval India, or Muslim India (both wrong); and 90 years for Modern India, or British India (again, both wrong). That gives us 3:20:100, not to be ignored in considering these matters. That also forces us to confront the reality of the huge mass of data available for Modern India, and the extra space needed for that.

Do think about these issues.

 

[aviator]

I wish you had ruined an otherwise useful post by using the phrase pseudo secular. This is a piece of political jargon used by the Sangh Parivar as an offensive way of addressing the Congress and leftists.

Love it or hate it but Congress is pseudo secular, it doesn't eliminates religion from politics it just creates special priviliges for every religious group to appease them, thats not secularism. Congress thrives on religious differences because thats what mainly distinguishes them from BJP, you take that out and you can see BJP states have been doing equally good or better in terms of most of terms.

PS: Being an Atheist, I am not follower of Sangh pariwar or RSS, you are hurting my anti-religious sentiments by grouping me with them