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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A typical pathetic attempt to deceive, trick, and misguide people for spreading disinformation, Just who are you trying to impress with your scholarly English, we all know the literacy rate of Bharat don’t we.
I couldn't even understand half of your diatribe and there is not a single reference you have given me while I did give you reference.
Your failure to give any reference and your cheap tactic of using shoddy vocabulary to impress upon others has earned you zero credibility. Sir, you know nothing about Pakistan’s history.
The Aryans associated with the Rig Veda and Sapta Sindhu (i.e. today's Pakistan region) had nothing to do with Ganga valley and they were not Hindu because they did not follow the Hindu caste system, they ate beef, sacrificed cows, culturally were closer to Avestan Iranians, forbade idolatry, etc. Also, not a single Hindu idol/temple has been excavated from the Rig Vedic Aryan period. “The evidence of the Rig Veda shows that during the centuries when the Aryans were occupying the Punjab and composing the hymns of the Rig Veda, the north-west part of the subcontinent was culturally separate from the rest of India. The closest cultural relations of the Indo-Aryans at that period were with the Iranians, whose language and sacred texts are preserved in the various works known as the Avesta, in inscriptions in Old Persian, and in some other scattered documents. So great is the amount of material common to the Rig Veda Aryans and the Iranians that the books of the two peoples show common geographic names as well as deities and ideas”. Arywarta was the region composed of Indus valley, Punjab and sindh were sacred. The aryavartans(Punjabis and Sindhi) called the people living in Ganga valley as Dasya vartans.
Source (Pakistan and Western Asia, By Prof. Norman Brown)
The name hind was first applied to Bharat when Arabs invaded Sindh and called everything east of Sindh as Hind including South East Asia. Arabs called the region between Arabian Sea and Hindu Kush as Sindh.
Source Chach Nama
Again you are making a joke of yourself, there were dozens of independent kingdoms in Pakistan during the time of Alexander invasion, some of the famous were Kingdom of Porus, Ghandhara kingdom, Kambojas, Swat, bajour, Malli, Surashtra, and there are dozens more. Alexander and Persians only knew about land beyond Punjab when they invaded those regions. Aristotle had told Alexander of ancient India(modern Pakistan) as being narrow and a great ocean lay beyond.
Source Albert Brian Bosworth «Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph»
They only came to know of Gangaridae, Prasii and Icthyophagi after they invaded ancient India.
The land west of river Indus is part of ancient Persia and central Asia which makes up around 60-70% Pakistan’ total area. Punjab and Sindh has always been knows as proper India and lies at the crossroads of Central, South and West Asia. Just because Bharat stole the name of ancient Pakistan(India) doesn’t means we will accept you people as our own.
Source History of Pakistan Ahmed Danni
About 50 % of Indians are Australoid-Negroid by race, 35% Caucasoid, and 15% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Indians are darker in their skin colour. About 70% of Pakistanis are Caucasoid by race, 20% Australoid- Negroid, and 10% Mongoloid in their overall genetic composition. Majority of Pakistanis are tall with fair skin complexion, similar to Middle Eastern and Mediterranean peoples. Linguistically speaking, India is only about one-half to three quarters Indo-European, while Pakistan is an almost entirely Indo-European speaking country up to ninety-nine percent.
Source Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture
Final note: Keep trying hard to prove Indians and Pakistanis are same people, no Pakistani will ever want to associate themselves to you. Just because you people have adopted our language (Sanskrit, Urdu), our culture, claim our heritage as your own, you people have forgotten your real Dravidian roots. Wake up Bharat.
