Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I didn't say that you have abandoned it. What I said is that some of you are searching for more than just that. Though many Pakistanis see no need for that.

I think even you can't deny the fact that this is a relatively new trend perhaps linked to the current geo-political events in some ways. The leaders who conceived of Pakistan never had anything other than the Islamic identity for the country in mind.

Certainly some in Pakistan are claiming the IVC roots. The fact is that few facts are known about the IVC. As more and more facts get known its true extent will also be known better.

What I am saying is why stop at just IVC? Was there nothing between the little known IVC and Bin Qasim? Why little or no interest in that history? Certainly more is known of that history than about the IVC which was certainly not known well at the time of the partition and was no basis of Pakistani nationhood.

First, there is ideology and faith, that links Pakistan to the Muslim world.

Pakistan's geographical proximity to the Muslim world, especially the spiritual center (Makkah and Medina), and her ethnic links (the claimed degree of which is arguable, but for the average Pakistani the counter claims are merely semantics) will ensure that the spiritual and ideological link remains strong so long as faith plays a major role in Pakistani life.

Second, we have the cultural roots in the lands of Pakistan themselves. Some Pakistanis may not claim them, as they see themselves as descendants of the Arab's primarily, but others see the our roots in Pakistan, based in the ancient IVC and what followed, the various empires and Kingdoms etc. And that is part of our history as well.

In my personal case for example, and that of various other Rajput clans in the Punjab, the Rajput dynasties and their reign in the areas of Pakistan, from whom we are likely descended, would obviously remain a part of our history.

But at the same time I do not see what I or my ancestors have to do with a civilization in South India or East India? There might be some connections as far as Central India, and other trade and economic relationships with the other civilizations, but that does not make me apart of them. In addition, there are also significant connections with Afghanistan and Persia. There are several Pashtun tribes for example who have settled in the Punjab, the Niazis, Jadun's, Tanaolis, Tareens etc. being examples of a few.

The point here is that Pakistan shares history with both East and West, so the argument of Pakistan being part of some 'Indic Civilization', when that term tries to imply some homogeneous identity for the plurality of cultures and civilizations in the subcontinent, is invalid.

I never mentioned 'civilizational reunion'. But I do think that Pakistan has come a full circle from the days of Bhutto and Zia and I guess now looks at itself as a South Asian country rather than a West Asian one.

I am still not convinced that Pakistan ever tried to portray itself as a 'non-South Asian country', it would have left SAARC for one thing if that had been the idea.

Though Subramanyam has tried to distort things through inserting his own opinions the fact remains that after the violence of 1971, and the complete lack of any desire for ties with India after she contributed to the breakup of the nation, no signs of movement on Kashmir from India, Pakistan looked to build relationships and alliances elsewhere.

I would say that where Pakistan failed was not so much in being rebuffed by the Arabs (they have still not gotten their own act together in terms of a united block, with common currency or markets, being ruled by petulant monarchs and dictators), but by not having much to offer by way of a relationship - no major industrial base or large economy etc. So beyond ideological commonalities, there was not much value to add to any relationship, though attempts were made by all sides.

By the way, to some extent Pakistan has been quite successful in cultivating relationships with the Arabs. Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia have significant interests in Pakistan, have significant cooperation and remain strong allies.

Subramanyam's analysis is way to simplistic, almost patronizing, and designed to pander to the Indian/Hindu reader.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Oh dear, so now "Indic" is merely an invention? Listen dude - everything is an invention, but there's a reason why most if not all historians use the term "Indic civilization".

Pakistani's shift towards the west was in terms of identity, which corresponded with a rejection/distortion of their ancient history.
All these events have culminated in the current attempt to dishonestly sever the strong bonds of history that connect the two countries.
There's a reason why Pakistani history books are not recognized outside of Pakistan.

"Indic Civilization" is an invention - "Indic Civlization's", Indic cultures, Indic peoples (plural), with Indic serving as an adjective referencing a region, would not be an invention.

 

[Vinod2070]

First, there is ideology and faith, that links Pakistan to the Muslim world.

Pakistan's geographical proximity to the Muslim world, especially the spiritual center (Makkah and Medina), and her ethnic links (the claimed degree of which is arguable, but for the average Pakistani the counter claims are merely semantics) will ensure that the spiritual and ideological link remains strong so long as faith plays a major role in Pakistani life.

Second, we have the cultural roots in the lands of Pakistan themselves. Some Pakistanis may not claim them, as they see themselves as descendants of the Arab's primarily, but others see the our roots in Pakistan, based in the ancient IVC and what followed, the various empires and Kingdoms etc. And that is part of our history as well.

In my personal case for example, and that of various other Rajput clans in the Punjab, the Rajput dynasties and their reign in the areas of Pakistan, from whom we are likely descended, would obviously remain a part of our history.

But at the same time I do not see what I or my ancestors have to do with a civilization in South India or East India? There might be some connections as far as Central India, and other trade and economic relationships with the other civilizations, but that does not make me apart of them. In addition, there are also significant connections with Afghanistan and Persia. There are several Pashtun tribes for example who have settled in the Punjab, the Niazis, Jadun's, Tanaolis, Tareens etc. being examples of a few.

The point here is that Pakistan shares history with both East and West, so the argument of Pakistan being part of some 'Indic Civilization', when that term tries to imply some homogeneous identity for the plurality of cultures and civilizations in the subcontinent, is invalid.

I see your point about the affinities to both your East and West and that is part of the issue. Pakistan is at the cross roads of major civilizations and is influenced by them majorly.

The way I see it is that the areas East of Sindhu share more with North India than they do with your West. Ethnically, culturally and civilizationally. The major difference is religion which admittedly is not a minor difference at all.

What the people East and West of Sindhu within Pakistan share is mainly just religion. The civilization,, outlook, culture, way of life everything is very different and has always been so. From the West of Sindhu start the tribal people and way of life that extends all the way to Arabia. Similarly to your North are people who are civilizationally very different and have always been so. You will find little in common with them except religion.

The reason for Pakistan's current geographical borders lie in the British colonial legacy or events immediately preceding that. You can see that if Afghanistan's claims on the lands Wast of Sindhu are taken as a reference, many of these arguments will get vacated automatically. The areas East of Sindhu are the real heart of Pakistan with the vast majority of the population.

And yes, Indian civilization is not homogenious and that is the beauty of it. That doesn't make them "non-Indic".

What I feel is that in trying to come to terms with the obvious incompatibility of the two civilizations within Pakistan, you guys feel compelled to negate any associations with the Indic one. That is part of the identity crisis of Pakistan.

I am still not convinced that Pakistan ever tried to portray itself as a 'non-South Asian country', it would have left SAARC for one thing if that had been the idea.

Though Subramanyam has tried to distort things through inserting his own opinions the fact remains that after the violence of 1971, and the complete lack of any desire for ties with India after she contributed to the breakup of the nation, no signs of movement on Kashmir from India, Pakistan looked to build relationships and alliances elsewhere.

I would say that where Pakistan failed was not so much in being rebuffed by the Arabs (they have still not gotten their own act together in terms of a united block, with common currency or markets, being ruled by petulant monarchs and dictators), but by not having much to offer by way of a relationship - no major industrial base or large economy etc. So beyond ideological commonalities, there was not much value to add to any relationship, though attempts were made by all sides.

By the way, to some extent Pakistan has been quite successful in cultivating relationships with the Arabs. Both the UAE and Saudi Arabia have significant interests in Pakistan, have significant cooperation and remain strong allies.

Subramanyam's analysis is way to simplistic, almost patronizing, and designed to pander to the Indian/Hindu reader.

I have seen this in many Pakistani writings, this desire to project themselves as being West Asians rather than South Asians. I am sure you would have seen them too. So this attempt for a period of time after 1971 would construe as trying to integrate the country into that region in my opinion. Whether it was a project doomed to failure from the start or just happened that time and may succeed in future is something to be seen. I don't agree that such an attempt never took place. SAARC was started long after the Bhutto/Zia days.

In a way it can be compared to the desire of the Turks to be a part of EU. The Europeans are hesitant to do that as they don't see the Turks as Europeans though they may engage with them at all levels. I see the Pakistan-Arab relationship in the same way based on your examples. You may engage with them at various levels, you will never be Arabs. Their behavior towards all Asian workers in their midst (and that includes Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalis, East Asians, Srilankans et al) proves this fact. And mind you it can not be just dismissed as individual acts of racism. It is a deep rooted thing.

 

[shravan]

BANGLADESHIS ARE SON OF A BIT-CH

BANGLADESH IS A LOW LYING LAND WITH A LOW LYING PEOPLE.

BANGLADESHIS ARE MONKEYS.

BANGLADESHIS ARE SPOON OF INDIA.

BANGLADESHI PEOPLE EAT HORSE SH-IT.

BANGLADESHI PEOPLE STINK LIKE FISH.

WE PAKISTANI ARE THE MOST SUPREME RACE

BANGALIES ARE MONKEYS AND THEY SUCK DONKEY'S CO-CK

WE FU-CK BANGALI DOGS

WE WILL KILL BANGALI DOGS

WE CUT BANGALI DOGS INTO PIECES

SHITHOLES ARE BANGLADESHIS

WE WILL NEVER FORGET THAT THEY ALLIED WITH INDIAN BASTARD ARMY & BETRAYED US WHICH SHATTERED OUR IMAGE TO THE WORLD

DUE TO THESE TRAITOR BANGALIS, WE HAD TO LOSE UNBELIEVABLY IN 1971 WAR.

YET WE FUCKED THEIR FEMALES,THEIR BREASTS ARE SO JUICY

WE LICKED BANGLADESHI FEMALES NIPPLES

WE RAPED THEM IN DAYLIGHT

WE MADE BANGLADESHI FEMALES PREGNANT

WE CUT THEIR BREASTS AND THEN DROPPED THEIR BODIES IN THE GRAVE.

ALLAH WILL HELP US TO TEACH BANGALI A VERY GOOD LESSON IN NEAR FUTURE.


WE KILLED BANGLADESHI FREEDOM FIGHTS INDISCRIMINATELY

WE ARE THE STRONGEST ARMY IN THE WORLD.

PAKISTAN ZINDABAD.

^^^ RAW AGENT ....?

 

[Kriti]

I believe that Pakistanis cannot lay a claim to the ancient history of India because it was created on religious lines and so the reason that Pakistan occupies a certain region is due to the fact that it was/is a muslim majority region.

INDIA as defined/named by the modern politicians is not what holds this diverse country together so the name is not that important. One of the reasons is the love that Indians have for their ancient history which has survived in indian art dance etc. As i am a north indian who has lived for 5 years in south so i have experienced this common thread of shared love for our common culture. Rigveda might have been composed anywhere but it belongs to us and so we have an emotional connect to the Indus. So what if that area is Pakistan now or disputed.Please dont claim our heritage. Your heritage lies towards the middle east and you made this choice during partition.

 

[Kriti]

You cant decide in any way that "Pakistan has forsaken its pre Islamic history". In reality there is no such thing as forsaking your own history. Yes I agree, Pakistanis have ignored their pre Islamic history, but its not up for grabs to the highest bidder.

No matter how hard you try to justify this using 19th century politics, the ancestors of the Pakistani people will remain the same. Ancestors of Indian people wont change. You cant simply start claiming a foreign peoples identity, even if they have certain misconceptions.
And least of all, you shouldn't be promoting said misconceptions.

I don't understand what logic you are using to turn Pakistan into a special case scenario. Do you realise how many countries gained independence in the 20th century from European colonialism?

India is in that list too.

Pakistan is simply another country that gained independence. Nothing was "created" in the way you seem to be stuck on. Pakistani people were not created overnight. Neither was Pakistani land or identity or language or history.

14 August 1947 was not a grand amnesia day.

I believe that Pakistanis cannot lay a claim to the ancient history of India because it was created on religious lines and so the reason that Pakistan occupies a certain region is due to the fact that it was/is a muslim majority region.

INDIA as defined/named by the modern politicians is not what holds this diverse country together so the name is not that important. One of the reasons is the love that Indians have for their ancient history which has survived in indian art dance etc. As i am a north indian who has lived for 5 years in south so i have experienced this common thread of shared love for our common culture. Rigveda might have been composed anywhere but it belongs to us and so we have an emotional connect to the Indus. So what if that area is Pakistan now or disputed.Please dont claim our heritage. Your heritage lies towards the middle east and you made this choice during partition.
No offence meant to anyone. These are just my views on this subject.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I believe that Pakistanis cannot lay a claim to the ancient history of India because it was created on religious lines and so the reason that Pakistan occupies a certain region is due to the fact that it was/is a muslim majority region.

INDIA as defined/named by the modern politicians is not what holds this diverse country together so the name is not that important. One of the reasons is the love that Indians have for their ancient history which has survived in indian art dance etc. As i am a north indian who has lived for 5 years in south so i have experienced this common thread of shared love for our common culture. Rigveda might have been composed anywhere but it belongs to us and so we have an emotional connect to the Indus. So what if that area is Pakistan now or disputed.Please dont claim our heritage. Your heritage lies towards the middle east and you made this choice during partition.
No offence meant to anyone. These are just my views on this subject.

Most of your arguments have been addressed already, multiple times, in the thread, if you choose to read through it.

You may also want to read the other sticky's on related issues to understand the Pakistani POV on this issue.

That way we do not go around in circles repeating the same arguments again and again.

 

[VisionHawk]

I believe that Pakistanis cannot lay a claim to the ancient history of India because it was created on religious lines and so the reason that Pakistan occupies a certain region is due to the fact that it was/is a muslim majority region.

Pakistan is a multi cultural country it is the home of pathans, balochs, punjabis ,kashmiris and sindhis . The creation of pakistan was on the basis of ideological grounds we took this step for the preservation of our cultural identity and by the grace of Almighty we succeeded in the struggle for a seperate homeland ,a secular homeland. The same people which earlier constituted the part of British empire remained under the control of muslim rulers for centuries the mughal era marked the peak of the cultural revolution within da region . The monuments Qutub Minar , Red Fort , Badshahi Masjid , Lahore Fort , Qila Bala hisar , Shalamar gardens and Tajmahal are few examples of which we still remember with pride. The Muslims are a nation by any definition of the word nation , this fact was acknowledged not only by the British but even by the Congress . So we aint laying any claims here , the history itself appraises our contributions

INDIA as defined/named by the modern politicians is not what holds this diverse country together so the name is not that important. One of the reasons is the love that Indians have for their ancient history which has survived in indian art dance etc. As i am a north indian who has lived for 5 years in south so i have experienced this common thread of shared love for our common culture. Rigveda might have been composed anywhere but it belongs to us and so we have an emotional connect to the Indus. So what if that area is Pakistan now or disputed.Please dont claim our heritage. Your heritage lies towards the middle east and you made this choice during partition.

The logic behind the name India is that it earned your country an instant seat in the UN council apart from that most of you guyz including your politicians prefer using the term hindustani or hindustan for your country. I have great respect for my eastern nieghbours but we never were one nor shall we ever be, we have always been 2 seperate nations living in the same region . Our culture our language our heritage and our glorious history supports my claim.

 

[RobbieS]

Pakistan is a multi cultural country it is the home of pathans, balochs, punjabis ,kashmiris and sindhis . The creation of pakistan was on the basis of ideological grounds we took this step for the preservation of our cultural identity and by the grace of Almighty we succeeded in the struggle for a seperate homeland ,a secular homeland. The same people which earlier constituted the part of British empire remained under the control of muslim rulers for centuries the mughal era marked the peak of the cultural revolution within da region . The monuments Qutub Minar , Red Fort , Badshahi Masjid , Lahore Fort , Qila Bala hisar , Shalamar gardens and Tajmahal are few examples of which we still remember with pride. The Muslims are a nation by any definition of the word nation , this fact was acknowledged not only by the British but even by the Congress . So we aint laying any claims here , the history itself appraises our contributions



The logic behind the name India is that it earned your country an instant seat in the UN council apart from that most of you guyz including your politicians prefer using the term hindustani or hindustan for your country. I have great respect for my eastern nieghbours but we never were one nor shall we ever be, we have always been 2 seperate nations living in the same region . Our culture our language our heritage and our glorious history supports my claim.

Going by what I have seen on this thread, I think its fair to say that the average Pakistani is fed a very distorted view of Indian (Indian sub-continent) history.

For starters, while I do not mean to denounce the two-nation theory and the creation of Pakistan, what I find amazing is the perceived 'no historical relation' with India by the Pakistanis.

Geographically and ethnically most of Pakistan was always a part of India. The Punjabis of Pakistan are pretty much the same as the NW population of India comprising of teh states of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and west. UP. I guess the prevalence of Rajput/Kshatriya surnames amongst Muslims in Pakistan like Rathore and Chawla is pretty much a proof of common history and ethnicity.

The ethnic links are even more evident in Jatt/Jat surnames both sides of the border. Surnames like Waraich, Sidhu, Janjua etc. are common to jatts on both sides of the border. And the people of these clans can be Hindu, SIkh or Muslim depending on their domicile.

So in fact most of Pak apart from the Balochis and the Pashtuns has everything in common with Indians. In this relation, the fact that India itself was and is an amalgamation of different ethnicities and religions should not be discounted.

 

[neo4moss]

Yes ive read it somewhere.. alexander attacked pakistan's hindu king poros and went back because pakistan army was assisted by china...

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Yes ive read it somewhere.. alexander attacked pakistan's hindu king poros and went back because pakistan army was assisted by china...

China ?? So it was the Hindu king Poros who started the friendship between China and Pakistan ?

 

[Faadi]

Hindus consider this land to be the most Holy place in the world and they still dream for the re-union of this sub-continent. That's why they may have named this whole region as India.

 

[Abhiras]

Hindus consider this land to be the most Holy place in the world and they still dream for the re-union of this sub-continent. That's why they may have named this whole region as India.

Yes do not only consider but also know that our land is holy((just like you consider mecca or madina)).
and we do not want unstable land of Pakistan....we are happy with our holy India
this whole region is named Indian subcontinent...not India.......

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The "India" the greeks were referring to wasnt called "India", and it was in Pakistan. Look up Alexanders invasion of "India", it didnt even touch modern India.

You are absolutely right?
Alexander intended to invade Pakistan, but since his spelling was so bad, he called it India.

Churchill was spot on, but I suppose you only want to quote hinduonnet sources.

Agreed, Churchill was the world's greatest historian.http://www.defence.pk/forums/images/smilies/cute/agree.gif

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Yes ive read it somewhere.. alexander attacked pakistan's hindu king poros and went back because pakistan army was assisted by china...

You should get a job teaching history.