Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[indianpatriot]

arey bhai india=afganistan to myanmar and kashmir to sri lanka
its a subcontienent who first anicent civilization came in 3800BC in gujarat+sarwaswatibasi+gangetic plains!!!!!!!!

 

[absmonarch]

Greek Geographer (and considered father of Geography), Eratosthenes, Head Librarian at the Great Library of Alexandira, drew this map in 220BC.

The Map shows very accurate map of Indian peninsula with Indus river in the west and Ganga river in the east. Pataliputra, the largest city in the world at the time, is shown on the banks of Ganga river.

Here is the links to view the map:

http ://www .19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/1895-Summary/Plates-150ppi/Plate-3a. jpg

(Please remove the spaces to view the link. I cannot post links).

So India = Indian subcontinent for 2300 years. This is true history. Not stealing, but real history.

 

[Rafi]

We claim the invaders as well as the indigenous, it is our right, the Islamic Civilization in our country is the product of the mixing of both these influences.

And our ancestors were largely, independent from bharat for most of our history, only short periods of empire - had us together.

There was no partition - two entities gained independence from the erstwhile British Empire. That is the truth and the whole truth.

 

[absmonarch]

Wrong!

Ancient Sindh and Punjab was part of Ancient India. Balochistan and Pashtun region part of Invader/foreign empire.

Pakistan is half-half country. Half in ancient India and half in ancient Persia/Bactria.

Ancient India half's history is part of Indian history and part of Pakistan history.

 

[Rafi]

Wrong!

Ancient Sindh and Punjab was part of Ancient India. Balochistan and Pashtun region part of Invader/foreign empire.

Pakistan is half-half country. Half in ancient India and half in ancient Persia/Bactria.

Ancient India half's history is part of Indian history and part of Pakistan history.

Synopsis
Drawing on primary sources, especially literature, this work endeavours to establish the separateness of Indus from India. Discarding accepted myths of Indian history, it presents a history of the political culture of the Indus region (now Pakistan) from ancient times to the modern age. It is aimed at historians and scholars as well as general readers interested in the history of the subcontinent.


The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan: Amazon.co.uk: Aitzaz Ahsan: Books

The Indus Valley is unique and separate from bharat -

Indus Valley equals Ancient Pakistan (9,000 years of history) equals Geographic Pakistan = Modern Pakistan.

Totally different from bharat = modern india.

 

[Rafi]

There was no partition - two entities gained independence from the erstwhile British Empire. That is the truth and the whole truth

It is a total fallacy, that the subcontinent was or is a mono-culture, what does a Tamil have in common with a Punjabi, or a Kashmiri with UP - nothing at all......

 

[absmonarch]

Pakistani authors twist and misrepresent history to prove wrong thing.

Eastern part of Pakistan part of Ancient India. India did not steal the name. The name always exist for 2300 years.

 

[PureAryan]

Wrong!

Ancient Sindh and Punjab was part of Ancient India. Balochistan and Pashtun region part of Invader/foreign empire.

Pakistan is half-half country. Half in ancient India and half in ancient Persia/Bactria.

Ancient India half's history is part of Indian history and part of Pakistan history.

Do you have any good references to backup your claim or just lies and fabrication

 

[Rafi]

There was no partition - two entities gained independence from the erstwhile British Empire. That is the truth and the whole truth

It is a total fallacy, that the subcontinent was or is a mono-culture, what does a Tamil have in common with a Punjabi, or a Kashmiri with UP - nothing at all......

^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the truth my friend, the Pakistan Civilization is unique and different, and has a 9,000 year old history. We are as different from bharat, as a French Man is to a Korean..

 

[absmonarch]

I posted evidence of ancient map. That is rock-solid evidence.

You are blind, do not want to believe the truth that Eastern half of Pakistan always part of Ancient India.

Even foreign invaders like Mughals recognize this fact and call it "Hindustan" - derived from "India".

British also recognize this and call it "India".

 

[PureAryan]

Pakistani authors twist and misrepresent history to prove wrong thing.

Eastern part of Pakistan part of Ancient India. India did not steal the name. The name always exist for 2300 years.

Eastern pakistan is indeed ancient india because the greeks(alexander empire) gave this name to people of indus valley i.e. punjab and sindh, the greeks called the inhabitants of ganga as Ganderites and prasii, they didn't call you indians, read the history by Plutarch and dionysis

 

[absmonarch]

Read the work by Father of Geography Eratosthenes who identify "Ancient India" properly in map.

Different kingdom people of Ancient India have different names, but collectively always "India".

Megasthenes, Greek ambassador to Mauryan kingdom at Pataliputra also call "India".

 

[Ghoster]

what Pakistanis saying Indus civilization purely as Pakistani civilization is not true............moreover it wasn't actually Indus civilization.

if you check the map you can find a dis-appropriate more settlements on eastern side of Indus than in western side .how could this happen if the civilization was centerd around indus.

it was actually centered around river saraswathy whose existence is proved by scientist

it was drying up of this river which cause the end of civilization not some AIT.

 

[PureAryan]

I posted evidence of ancient map. That is rock-solid evidence.

You are blind, do not want to believe the truth that Eastern half of Pakistan always part of Ancient India.

Even foreign invaders like Mughals recognize this fact and call it "Hindustan" - derived from "India".

British also recognize this and call it "India".

your history knowledge is quite limited and this is probably my last post to you, the word Hindu comes from sindhu, it was a secular term not a religious term untill british came in 1800's, the name was given to Sindh (lower indus Valley region) rather than the Indian subcontinent by Sassanid persians Empire, The sassanids occupied Sindh in early 200AD and ruled for few centuries, When mughals came they applied name hindustan over all of northen india

 

[Ghoster]

so what?
i was replying to indus valley being categorised as a purely pakistan-only civilization which is not the case