Use of the name " India'

[kalu_miah]

I often read comments here from Pak & sometimes BD posters expressing resentment on use of the name " India' by India.

The logic offered varies from India being a collective name for the sub continent to a British coined name. Furthermore, since the region was divided in 47 the usage of the name as suggested by some should stop as the Brit colony ceased to exist.

I cannot understand the resentment or is it a sense of jealousy as having retained the name India becomes a natural claimant to the history that goes with the name ? After all the more than major chunk of land associated with this name is with India.

As I see it , its like this :

• Pakistan chose its own name so what difference should it make to it what the rest of the Sub Continent calls itself ? It appears like "I don't want it but you shouldn't have it" !!
• The Elder Son kept the family name , a name that it was known by for centuries.
• There are countless nations across the globe known by two names - One international & the other Local therefore if India uses ' Bharat' alongside its perfectly fine - both name have stayed for centuries.
• BD was not even conceived back then so they do not count .

Comments if any please

If you are referring to what I said in some posts, let me be clear here, I have no resentment or jealousy about what or how you name your country, why should I? Thanks for the good laugh though.

But I am free to express my opinion on this matter which I did and I stand by my statements.

It is better to have one logo and one brand name for a corporation and it is better to make it indigenous and unique, otherwise you get endless confusions and heartache.

And that there is confusion among Indians between the idea of geographic historic region called India or British colonial state of India or the Republic of India is quite obvious to many, so it is not unreasonable to try and find the reason for this phenomenon.

Besides, why should you care what Europeans called your region or homeland, why should you borrow European word to name your country and establish your brand name. Wouldn't Bharat, a word of indigenous Sanskrit origin as the sole brand name, be a better choice? Should it not be a matter of pride for people of Bharat?

You may find these links interesting:
Bharat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bharat Mata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Names of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are countries with multiple names, but none seem to have a confusion to the degree that we see here in case of India, so it is not a problem for them. But that cannot be said for India unfortunately.

 

[Maira La]

Yes, and Columbus told this to you over a jug of beer.

Indonesia was called Dutch East Indies for a reason!

The Dutch East Indies (orNetherlands East Indies; Dutch:Nederlands-Indië; Indonesian: Hindia Belanda) was a Dutch colony that became modern Indonesia followingWorld War II. It was formed from the nationalised colonies of the Dutch East India Company, which came under the administration of the Dutchgovernment in 1800.

@KingMamba

 

[third eye]

If you are referring to what I said in some posts, let me be clear here, I have no resentment or jealousy about what or how you name your country, why should I? Thanks for the good laugh though.

I have no idea what you are talking of. You flatter yourself by giving yourself so much attention.

 

[kalu_miah]

I have no idea what you are talking of. You flatter yourself by giving yourself so much attention.

If you are not referring to any of my posts, then never mind, carry on.

 

[Sneaker]

Ha ha.. the amount of scratching some people are experiencing is enormous and funny to watch. Back then, India was a geo entity and a "nation". Definition of nation is -"a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." That geo entity is now divided between 3 countries (majorly) and only republic of india wants to retain the identity. When Jinnah and others wanted separation from british India, they effectively dissociated themselves and pakistanis from "common descent, history, culture" of this land mass. We retained it. Back then, I think they did not understand how great/ancient that civilization was and they wanted to be arabs..now wanting a piece of culture (actually all of it) that they themselves have thrown away earlier... such a short-sightedness cost whole pakistan their identity and made them forget/despise their roots....

 

[bongbang]

I dont see the problem, each country can call themselves what ever they want. Pakistan, Bangladesh and every other nation of South Asia has a history as old as india.

Problem is when people call Indian sub continent. When BD is automatically included. Well it can be Indian subcontinent but its not the present India's subcontinent.

 

[nik141991]

@anonymus look how shameful that racist TT is, after getting owned in 500bc thread he is still continuing his propganda, your presence is needed to teach these analysts real history

 

[Levina]

The map below shows various historical sites that streched from Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan. Most are from 5,000 years well before any modern nation state came into existance. You will notice most of these are in Pakistan.However search internet for each othese sites or or like Kulli or Harappan culture the name India will pop up. Clearly this referance must be to the geograhic India. Again Alexander invaded India.

The actual fact is as can be seen on the ground and in the map below these places are in Pakistan. If India is used as a geographic denominator yes, indeed they are in India but then the Indian's use this to leverage the facts to look like it is their republican India and thiers. This has to stop. Please refer to the map below again. The red line designates the approx area of the Gandhara Bhuddist Kingdom based in Taxila next to modern capittal of Pakistan Islamabad. Taxila also was centre of Greek kingdoms. However 'India' is mostly used in referance to 'Gandhara' and this is used by Indians to claim Gandhara despite the fact that Gandahara never even came close to republic of India. Please click the Wiki article and see what I mean. The entire article has been distorted to make it look like it is India.

Gandhara Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why 're you stuck in time sir???
Forget Alexander, Vasco da gama and Columbus came looking for INDIA (geographic and the republic).

@anonymus look how shameful that racist TT is, after getting owned in 500bc thread he is still continuing his propganda, your presence is needed to teach these analysts real history

We should not be surprised at the reason why they 're trying to hijack history. Can't you see they want a place in history, it would give them a feeling of "having arrived".Lol

 

[damiendehorn]

Problem is when people call Indian sub continent. When BD is automatically included. Well it can be Indian subcontinent but its not the present India's subcontinent.

Yep, thats why I mention South Asia and not indian subcontinent. Bangladesh is a part of Asia, or South Asia and it should be refered to as such.

 

[Srinivas]

When Arabs invaded Babylon they named that land as Iraq, Iraq is the name of the cliff through which Arabs came to conquer. That do not mean Babylon is claiming the cliff's civilization since it is named after it.

This is the same logic and argument we see in this thread.

first they got the land based on Arabic civilization and system, now they are trying to rewrite history.

 

[bongbang]

Yep, thats why I mention South Asia and not indian subcontinent. Bangladesh is a part of Asia, or South Asia and it should be refered to as such.

People should refer to present India by its full name as Republic of India or Bharat Ganarajyo. Or by short form ROI or BG. Then we dont have problems if any one refers India as Bangladesh or Pakistan. Canada, Mexico all are America too. They simply refer America as USA. This way any complexity can be avoided.

 

[anonymus]

@anonymus look how shameful that racist TT is, after getting owned in 500bc thread he is still continuing his propganda, your presence is needed to teach these analysts real history

This is not the first time, and it won't be the last when he post same crap, after being refuted. He has same modus-operandi everywhere. Even if you humilate him in this thread, he would open another one to peddle his pathetic propaganda.

There isn't much left to post after what I have posted in this thread: Ancient Pakistan - 500Bc | Page 2

@levina , Since you have joined that forum, you could get debate pointers from threads that I have mentioned in that Ancient Pakistan thread.

Also this thread would also prove to be treasure trove of knowledge about Glorious deed of Ghazis in India, and show that IS is actually a benign follower of Islamic ideology. Posts of Ajanbahu from the page that I am quoting are good ones.

Historum - History Forums

 

[nik141991]

Why 're you stuck in time sir???
Forget Alexander, Vasco da gama and Columbus came looking for INDIA (geographic and the republic).


We should not be surprised at the reason why they 're trying to hijack history. Can't you see they want a place in history, it would give them a feeling of "having arrived".Lol

And the most funny thing is when that religious bigot & racist TT get own when presented with historical fact he duck it buy bringing how poor India is compared to mighty Pakistan lol

 

[Levina]

@levina , Since you have joined that forum, you could get debate pointers from threads that I have mentioned in that Ancient Pakistan thread.

Also this thread would also prove to be treasure trove of knowledge about Glorious deed of Ghazis in India, and show that IS is actually a benign follower of Islamic ideology. Posts of Ajanbahu from the page that I am quoting are good ones.

Historum - History Forums

OMG!!!
was that you??
Bowdown!!
I was reading those threads on that forum and frankly I felt I was very dilettante to post anything there. I was impressed by the fact that ppl have started to call Indus valley civilisation as Sindu-Saraswati civilisation everywhere else (beyond this forum ).

 

[nForce]

Problem is when people call Indian sub continent. When BD is automatically included. Well it can be Indian subcontinent but its not the present India's subcontinent.

Indian subcontinent refers to the region adjoining India protruding into the Indian Ocean. The reason why it is called Indian subcontinent, is, India is historically and politically the biggest and the most significant territorial entity in the region.

These are just naming conventions and nothing like an absolute justification can be found in favour or against it.

It's like arguing, why shall we call it Arabian sea, while India, Pakistan, Iran share shores with it, or why shall we call it Persian Gulf, while it's not like only the Persians have access to it.

You can discuss and discuss, at the end of the day these are cases of convention over logic.