I know there is no point of having a discusssion with you, i will give a last try.
Please keep your promise - let it be your last.
Being confronted with Google scholars in season and out of season is irritating in the extreme. There is no harm in resorting to Wikipedia on an area on which one has no expertise, in order to get one's bearings, but this has to be subject to the opinions of those trained in the disciplines concerned, and the fine details in Wikipedia should not be brandished under the noses of others as possessing any legitimacy beyond a preliminary direction to further research.
The name sapta sindhwa was only applied to punjab and sindh not to the entire sub-continent.
True. And you failed to get the linguistic point, like some others earlier: neither did the term Hapta-Hindu refer to the whole sub-continent. The term Hindu, in its late mediaeval connotations, meaning black man, did refer to residents of the whole sub-continent. Hapta-Hindu was Avestan, about 2000 BC to 1500 BC; the other connotation may be as late as Sassanian.
The persians and greeks didn't know anything about land that lay beyond punjab.
Both the Persians, due to their occupation and rule of cis-Indus territory, and the Greeks, due to their explorations, knew about land that lay beyond Punjab. There are
profuse citations of historical literature and of old geographical tracts, even maps based on those old tracts, which have been reproduced here; there is no longer any excuse for pretended ignorance about Persian and Greek knowledge of conditions well within the sub-continent, at the minimum about the Gangaridae, Prasii and Icthyophagi, arguably at least about the Golden Chersonese. By the time of the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, the eastern coastline all the way until the south-east Asian coastline was known.
Wrong again
The first time the word hindu was used aroud 262 AD when it was mentioned as an area in Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription of Shapur 1, the sassanid ruler, The inscription enlists the area conquered by Sassanid emperor who defeated Kushans. The name hindustan was only applied to sindh not to punjab because sassanids only occupied sindh.
A sourcebook of Indian civilization - Google Books
For those scholars who are determined to stay within Wikipedia and its mind-numbing inaccuracies, it is advisable to Google for Hapta-Hindu and see the evident results.
As anyone can do this and get the same results, your particular betisse in defining Hindu as a word of Sassanian origin can be demonstrated to be an egregious error using your own favourite source of information and knowledge. There is a lot of difference between the Avestan Vendidad and the inscriptions of Shapur. About 2,200 years, in fact.
About your statement about the name Hindustan, it is apparent that you have lost the thread (in more senses than one, it is tempting to surmise).
This thread is about India's selection of the word India to describe itself as a nation-state. It is not about the nooks and crannies of the use of the word Hindustan; that is not, in fact, a word under discussion, while the word Hindu is under discussion. The reason for that, clear to all who have kept their mental balance and a sense of direction, is that the word Indikos was derived from the Greek mispronunciation of Hindu; so Hindu is relevant. Hindustan had nothing to do with the Greeks, although it had a lot to do with history otherwise, therefore it is not relevant to this discussion.
I agree there is no diference between people of subcontinent,
If you are willing to wait a month or so, I shall endeavour to get Professor Cavalli-Sforza's personal expression of gratitude to you to have so handsomely validated some 40 years of genetic research. As a preliminary,
thank you for condescending to endorse what nearly two generations of population geneticists have been toiling over. Now they know what it is like to be given a medal by Napoleon.
but pakistanis are not south asian, Pakistanis are south Central Asian, culturally, historically, ethnically, geographically, and all follow same religion.
Ofcourse you disagree to all what i have written.
Perfectly sensible and clear and lucid.
No difference between people of the sub-continent, but Pakistanis are not South Asian, they are south
Central Asian.
Ah, I see. First History was laid low, now it is the turn of geology and geography, not in that order necessarily.
Continental drift has apparently set in faster and harder than ever before, and after 1947, inspired by Nazaria-e-Pakistan, Pakistan itself has been separating itself from the rest of South Asia.
No doubt soon we will find a Wikipedia entry justifying this. It's such a shame that even that rag-tag and bobtail collection of miscellaneous information baulks at your creative geological forays.
It's also such a shame that some treacherous unpatriotic Pakistanis have blown holes in your arguments before even you had a fair chance to place it for review with your peers, and also in front of the rest of the world which enjoys unrestrained free movement. Their studies, reported in the Journal of American Genetics, taking the Cavalli-Sforza experiments dramatically forwards, shows that there is no difference, in terms of genetics between any on the sub-continent - specifically, between Pakistanis and other south Asians.
Too bad. You should set somebody behind that dastardly lot of scientists - I don't know who is currently favoured for jobs of this sort - who knows, perhaps a Google search through Wikipedia might help?
PS: What is a
PureAryan ?
In case Wikipedia has failed you on this point as well, it might be worth your noting that there are Indo-Aryan languages, but no Aryan race, not since the last of the Nazis died.
If you describe yourself as PureAryan, you are laying claim to speaking some branch of the Indo-Aryan branch of languages; it does not, regrettably, offer you any genetic or racial cachet.
