Please do not show this to Indians.

[BHarwana]

This is a subcontinent word for the country and its called Bharat. 'Hind' is more or less a Persian pronunciation for word 'Hindu'.

Hind has nothing to do with Persia. Hind has every thing to do with south India I will explain it later now lets focus on Bharat where is Bharat coming from? what is the meaning of Bharat. how did it came into existence. first look at this picture and which nationality you can see just tell me without using google.

 

[BHarwana]

or this image what do you think is the nationality of this image.

 

[Whirling_dervesh]

India didnt just take up the name. Its the successor state of British India and Mughal India before that. India had already joined UN in 1945 and when it got independence, got the UN memebership by default oqing to its being considered thw successor to british india. Whereas pakistan had to apply for fresh membership; clearly shows that pakistan was carved out of India and India just changed the form of govt.


The term India has been used for at least 2 millenia. In local languages India was known as Bharat or Bharatvarsha. There is even a verse in rigveda that defines Bharat's boundaries which correspond to borders of British Indian empire. India has always been considered a cultural and civilizational entity just like china or arabia.


Lol says the guy who assumes all Indians to be hindu. I despise all religions including hinduism but Islam has a special characteristic of turning its followers into mindless bigots who hate hearing a spade being called a spade.
Your hatred for hindus or non muslims is extraordinary.

Total and utter revisionist bull...is this what RSS and VHP are teaching you fools? Mohammed Ali Jinnah deliberately chose not to use the 'India' because it was disparaging and insulting to use the name coined by your colonial masters ...the british. Jinaah preferred PAKISTAN which was an acronym for Punjab,Afghania,Kashmir, sind,Tataristan etc. Yet Bharatis have no shame in riding on the tailcoats of their colonial masters...you need to check your facts and not BJP Literature

Wrong again..the term India has NOT been used for at least 2 millenia, nowhere in the vast literature of Sanskrit has 'india' been mentioned, Nor does the term India appear in Buddhist or Jain texts and nor was it used in any of ''India’s'' numerous languages. Bharatvarsha or bharat is NOT India, The word Bharat derives from Bharatavarsha (the land of the Bharatas), Bharatas being the most prominent and distinguished of the early Vedic clans who migrated from the Indus Valley to the Ganges plain sometime between 1200 BCE to 800 BCE. The actual are of Bharatvarsha is no more than a territory in the North West of India in the Gangetic Bowl. Certainly not even an iota of the subcontinent of India that hardline hindus have spoonfed you on believing

 

[Mamluk]

europeans called India the land east of Indus and not adjacent to it. That is the reason why ancient balochistan and NWFP were never considered parts of India by foreigners neither by locals. Guess you have been reading wrong stuff.

You made that all up didn't you?

Actually Balochistan was the first Hind, the easternmost Satrap of the Persian empire. That's the beginning of this name.

It's almost like the term "Asia". It started with Turkey - that's what Europeans knew as Asia - and today the geographical extent of this term goes all the way to Japan. Does pre-Muslim Anatolian history belong to Japan?

 

[Ocean]

Isn't that what is happening in Jerusalem already. Europeans claiming the legacy of Jerusalem because they are Jews.

Absolutely. The ones who laid claims were son of yaqoob / israel and his sons , i dont know how these european and non bani israeli jews claiming israel and palestine?

 

[SorryNotSorry]

Mehrgarh which is proto IVC lies entirely in conterminous Pakistan, it seems even those IVC sites in India are due to migration from West to East not other way around! NB though nothing in the damn filth ridden Ganga.

Not consistent with @Kaptaan ’s argument. As per this thread- If some lie within the geographical boundaries of ‘gangaland’ then those ones exclusively belong to the history of Indus Gangadeshis.

Hind has nothing to do with Persia. Hind has every thing to do with south India I will explain it later now lets focus on Bharat where is Bharat coming from? what is the meaning of Bharat. how did it came into existence. first look at this picture and which nationality you can see just tell me without using google.

Not south Asian for sure. What’s your point?

 

[Kaniska]

Indian do not need the certificate of acceptance of our cultural existence from outsiders...So relax Kaptaan.we know our history very welll unlike some nations who are not sure about theirs..

 

[Photon]

Whatever you do please do not show this news clip from 1947 to Indian's or they will get a cardiac arrest when they see that they were "born" in August 1947.

The headline says "Sovereign" India is born.
No Indian will dispute that, before 15 August 1947 sovereign India did not exist.

However India itself has existed for several millennia .

Now my question for you is, if you are Pakistanis today..then who were you from 14th August 1947 to 16th December 1971, before sovereign Bangladesh was born.

 

[Imran Khan]

if someone think indus valley is in modern day india he need to go mental hospital

 

[neem456]

Childish thread with childish title

 

[third eye]

Whatever you do please do not show this news clip from 1947 to Indian's or they will get a cardiac arrest when they see that they were "born" in August 1947.

Not that it matters but since foreign papers seem to matter so much , take a look at these too:

 

[faithfulguy]

Pakistan is an acronym that already has Sindh (real India) in it. Your country's name is a mistake, just like Indonesia and West Indies. You have nothing to do with most of Indus.

Indian do not need the certificate of acceptance of our cultural existence from outsiders...So relax Kaptaan.we know our history very welll unlike some nations who are not sure about theirs..

India could denote a civilization. Just like western civilization denotes Western European culture. But a civilization does not entail a nation. Just like Western Europe has never been a nation.

Without the British unified India. India would not exist as a nation today.

 

[t_for_talli]

A name is just a name. A legal entity like sovereign India or Pakistan can come and go. Fact: both came into existence in 1947. That is why you celebrate in August every year. The British Raj was dissolved in 1947. However when I talk of our history I mean our land and it's peoples. Do try to understand that fine point. Fools like you will claim Sri Lankan people arrived on alien space ships in 1971 and took over Ceylon. Or that Myanmar has no history prior to 1980. Or that West Indians are proper Ganga worshipping Hindus and West Indies was part of Mata India because - well look at the name West I-n-d-i-a-n.

I talk of history of Indus Basin which as a geographic fact has existed for millenia. I trace it's history from dawn of time all the way to the present iteration of that sacred geography - Indus Pakistan.

Got that Mr Ganga?

Owning Istanbul doesn't give right to Turkey to claim its heritage culture,
Heritage/culture of Constantinople is inherited by Vatican,

Culture is not a tangible thing like land or a piece of stone which can be captured,

People will never go to Pakistan to learn Vedas (originated in present-day Pak, IVC), They will come to India
People will never go to Pakistan to learn Yoga (originated in present-day Pak, IVC), They will come to India
Researchers on Sanskrit will never go to Pakistan (originated in present-day Pak, IVC), They will come to India

Pakistan only owns the land, but the culture is inherited by Indians

@Chinese-Dragon
India never claim Kung fu because Shaolin was established by Indian monk, There is nothing common between Kung Fu and India,
Similarly, there is nothing common between IVC and Pakistan, But there is a lot similarity with India (Vedic/ Dharmic religions, Languages derived from Sanskrit, Yoga etc. )

Land can be captured inherited, but culture cannot, it reflects in the way of life

 

[Pak-Punjabi]

India the country and India the region are 2 DIFFERENT entities. The point that gets overlooked is the world was not always organized in centralized nation states. India or Afg are NOT 5000 years countries. Up until 1947 India was simply name of a region with countless small states that paid tribute to overarching empires that could be described as regional UNs with some sort of uniformity in policy be it Muslims or Engrez. The state of Jaipur lasted a 1000 year up till it was dissolved in India as it paid its dues to whomever lay claim to the throne of South Asia.

I will go as far as saying the word "Indian" belongs to all peoples the same way the term America belongs to Canadians (North Americans) & those states in South America but Pakistanis & Bangladeshis turned away from it because they do not want to be confused with Indian citizens which is now the standard meaning.

So, Pakistan never partitioned from India, it is still there, but that area of India (the region) became Pakistan & the rest stuck with the term India.

 

[Mamluk]

India could denote a civilization.

Today, from an Euro-centric point of view, it simply is a geographical expression to refer to a subcontinent.
Like Africa.
You can't say there's such a thing as a single "African" civilization, just because to an ignorant westerner they are all "a savage bunch we can't tell apart, so let's group them all together into a single identity". Something Europeans do all too often.