Why the name "India" was a good choice for the former British colony

[peagle]

"India" is actually a clever choice for the continent sized country that the British left behind. The Indus is equally foreign to all regions of India. It doesn't run through Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, UP etc. etc.

Any other name would not work. Ganges Republic would not make sense for the Southern states. Dravida Nadu does not make sense for the Northern states. Bharat would be atrocious, no empire in India's history called themselves Bharat (an early Indo-Aryan tribe who looked nothing like modern Indians). The only logical choice would be Republic of Former British Empire in South Asia (RFBESA), but that would hurt the brown man's ego. 'India' (land of Indus) saved the day because it's not associated with any region in this new 'India' so no one can object to regional domination.

In a way it's similar to how English language was chosen as the official language of India. It's equally foreign to all regions, so one region's language does not dominate the rest and no one objects.

And that's how it's the only country in the (old) world having a name that is not of native origin.

I'm sorry, and with respect, this is an absurd argument.
India was named after the river Indus, if any country that should have the claim to that name it is Pakistan.
But since historically, the name was used to refer to a region and the British used it to describe their South Asian colony, it should have remained a name for the region, not for a country. Because with that name there are so many associations that belong to Bangladeshis and Pakistanis.

Indian food, India classical music, Indian culture and so on, these are historical associations to describe cultural realities in South Asia, they are inherently linked to the word India.

By claiming the name India, the Nation State of India has appropriated our regional heritage, it was a criminal wrong and should never have happened.

They have the name Hindustan and Bharat, these names are also officially recognised and very much accepted by all people, so either or both of these names would have sufficed.

The name India is wrong also because it has confused the history of India, the country, which is only 75 years old and came into existence in 1947, and the historical India, a region, which has nothing to do with the Nation State of India. It is utterly and completely wrong.

 

[pc_alt]

I'm sorry, and with respect, this is an absurd argument.
India was named after the river Indus, if any country that should have the claim to that name it is Pakistan.
But since historically, the name was used to refer to a region and the British used it to describe their South Asian colony, it should have remained a name for the region, not for a country. Because with that name there are so many associations that belong to Bangladeshis and Pakistanis.

Indian food, India classical music, Indian culture and so on, these are historical associations to describe cultural realities in South Asia, they are inherently linked to the word India.

By claiming the name India, the Nation State of India has appropriated our regional heritage, it was a criminal wrong and should never have happened.

They have the name Hindustan and Bharat, these names are also officially recognised and very much accepted by all people, so either or both of these names would have sufficed.

The name India is wrong also because it has confused the history of India, the country, which is only 75 years old and came into existence in 1947, and the historical India, a region, which has nothing to do with the Nation State of India. It is utterly and completely wrong.

I am repeating a reply I gave earlier. The erstwhile South Asian colony was called India. When Pakistan separated, India remained India. Why is it strange when same thing happened in 1971. Did Pakistan change its name when Bangladesh separated?

Is BD complaining that retaining the name Pakistan is appropriating cultural heritage of Bangladesh?

 

[peagle]

In Bangladesh, Hindus generally prefer to be referred to as "Shonaton dhormalombi" or followers of Sanatan dharma and not Hindus.

That is extremely interesting, I've never heard that before. Thanks

I am repeating a reply I gave earlier. The erstwhile South Asian colony was called India. When Pakistan separated, India remained India. Why is it strange when same thing happened in 1971. Did Pakistan change its name when Bangladesh separated?

Is BD complaining that retaining the name Pakistan is appropriating cultural heritage of Bangladesh?

I know what the reason was, bhai jaan.
If you kill your wife/GF lover, that is a reason, but it doesn't mean it is OK. There are always reasons.

It has happened, be done with it, I don't really care.
The point here is if it was right nor wrong, and it was so clearly wrong.

Pakistan was and is a nation state, Bangladesh broke away, you cannot claim a name from which you are breaking away.
The colony of British India was just a conquered region, the question of inheritance does not arise. Pakistan picked a name for itself, the world didn't crumble, India could and should have picked Bharat or Hindustan, and it actually does use those names. The name India should have been left for the region, not a country. I think that's clear enough.

 

[pc_alt]

That is extremely interesting, I've never heard that before. Thanks



I know what the reason was, bhai jaan.
If you kill your wife/GF lover, that is a reason, but it doesn't mean it is OK. There are always reasons.

It has happened, be done with it, I don't really care.
The point here is if it was right nor wrong, and it was so clearly wrong.

Pakistan was and is a nation state, Bangladesh broke away, you cannot claim a name from which you are breaking away.
The colony of British India was just a conquered region, the question of inheritance does not arise. Pakistan picked a name for itself, the world didn't crumble, India could and should have picked Bharat or Hindustan, and it actually does use those names. The name India should have been left for the region, not a country. I think that's clear enough.

Tujhko mirchi lagi to mein kya karoon. The area was called 'India' long before British arrived on its shores.
You know why Native Americans are called Indians? Because when Columbus landed in America, he first thought he has discovered the sea route to India.

 

[crankthatskunk]

"India" is actually a clever choice for the continent sized country that the British left behind. The Indus is equally foreign to all regions of India. It doesn't run through Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Orissa, UP etc. etc.

Any other name would not work. Ganges Republic would not make sense for the Southern states. Dravida Nadu does not make sense for the Northern states. Bharat would be atrocious, no empire in India's history called themselves Bharat (an early Indo-Aryan tribe who looked nothing like modern Indians). The only logical choice would be Republic of Former British Empire in South Asia (RFBESA), but that would hurt the brown man's ego. 'India' (land of Indus) saved the day because it's not associated with any region in this new 'India' so no one can object to regional domination.

In a way it's similar to how English language was chosen as the official language of India. It's equally foreign to all regions, so one region's language does not dominate the rest and no one objects.

And that's how it's the only country in the (old) world having a name that is not of native origin.

Ok, one simple question, the native Americans how and why they were called "Indians! Was there also an Indus running somewhere!!

India , or Indians my friend is a racists term coined by the Whites, well before they came to India.

 

[Bossman]

Tujhko mirchi lagi to mein kya karoon. The area was called 'India' long before British arrived on its shores.
You know why Native Americans are called Indians? Because when Columbus landed in America, he first thought he has discovered the sea route to India.

Called India by whom, the Europeans, your neighbors called you Hindistan or Hindustan, but the real question is where did you guys called yourself?

 

[faithfulguy]

I'm sorry, and with respect, this is an absurd argument.
India was named after the river Indus, if any country that should have the claim to that name it is Pakistan.
But since historically, the name was used to refer to a region and the British used it to describe their South Asian colony, it should have remained a name for the region, not for a country. Because with that name there are so many associations that belong to Bangladeshis and Pakistanis.

Indian food, India classical music, Indian culture and so on, these are historical associations to describe cultural realities in South Asia, they are inherently linked to the word India.

By claiming the name India, the Nation State of India has appropriated our regional heritage, it was a criminal wrong and should never have happened.

They have the name Hindustan and Bharat, these names are also officially recognised and very much accepted by all people, so either or both of these names would have sufficed.

The name India is wrong also because it has confused the history of India, the country, which is only 75 years old and came into existence in 1947, and the historical India, a region, which has nothing to do with the Nation State of India. It is utterly and completely wrong.

India as a political entity was created by the British. India the geographical expression was named by ancient Persians and Greeks.

 

[pc_alt]

Called India by whom, the Europeans, your neighbors called you Hindistan or Hindustan, but the real question is where did you guys called yourself?

Yes called by Greeks and through them the Europeans.
We called ourselves Bharat. Hence we have both 'Bharat' and 'India' as official names.

Its been 75 years and you guys are still debating our name rather than focusing on real issues facing your nation.

Ok, one simple question, the native Americans how and why they were called "Indians! Was there also an Indus running somewhere!!

India , or Indians my friend is a racists term coined by the Whites, well before they came to India.

You are making an inverse logic. When Ottomans captured Constantinople, they stopped the land trade route from Europe to India. So Europeans started looking for sea route to India. Many explorers ventured out. One such explorer Columbus landed in America and thought he has reached India. Hence the natives over there started being called Indians.

Had it been a purely racist term, they would used the same term for Africans as well, which they did not.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Yeah, but do not say Indian subcontinent.


Say Asian subcontinent, because Pakistanis are not Indians.

 

[pc_alt]

Yeah, but do not say Indian subcontinent.


Say Asian subcontinent, because Pakistanis are not Indians.

Actually, it is foreigners who call it Indian subcontinent.
We just call it Akhanda Bharat, lol. (Its a joke).

You can call it South Asia or The subcontinent.

 

[Bossman]

Yes called by Greeks and through them the Europeans.
We called ourselves Bharat. Hence we have both 'Bharat' and 'India' as official names.

Its been 75 years and you guys are still debating our name rather than focusing on real issues facing your nation.


You are making an inverse logic. When Ottomans captured Constantinople, they stopped the land trade route from Europe to India. So Europeans started looking for sea route to India. Many explorers ventured out. One such explorer Columbus landed in America and thought he has reached India. Hence the natives over there started being called Indians.

Had it been a purely racist term, they would used the same term for Africans as well, which they did not.

Wrong, you never called yourself Bharat, you called yourself Brahmins, Shudras, Sindhis, Rajhistanis, Bengalis, Biharis, and everything thing in between. You guys were nothing but a bunch of Pye dogs until the Mughals and then the British gave you some order.

 

[-blitzkrieg-]

Are you Bangladeshi or Pakistani?

He is more Pakistani than many so-called "pakistanis" here

You're fucking nuts. Forget Alexander, neither Mughals nor a single kingdom in Bengal called itself India/Hindustan.
Don't refer to European sources, they called the half of the world India at different points in history - Dutch India (Indonesia), British India, French India (Cambodia,Vietnam,Laos), the Americas were originally called India (some parts are still called West India/Indies).
As I said in the OP, the natives of none of these places called themselves India/Indians..

India is not an insulting name. It is just a Greek / Latin way of pronouncing 'Hindu'.
Due to Sindhu river, the people on this side of the river were called Hindu by Persians. Greeks heard this from Persians and due to no 'H' in their pronunciation, called it Indu which became India later.

The greek name given by Herodotus was 'Indos' not India. The latin word indika literally translates into "from indos"..And this word was taken from persians who couldnt pronounce the 's' well in sindhu.So the original word was sindu not hindu.. And its important to point the greeks used it for many regions like mentioned above but here precisely it was used for the indus valley around sindh..not the ganges not the tamil /deccan or central peninsula nor the fart fetched bengal or seven sisters.

 

[pc_alt]

Wrong, you never called yourself Bharat, you called yourself Brahmins, Shudras, Sindhis, Rajhistanis, Bengalis, Biharis, and everything thing in between. You guys were nothing but a bunch of Pye dogs until the Mughals and then the British gave you some order.

People who have forgotten their pre-Islamic heritage should not teach others their heritage.

 

[xyxmt]

It was due to their obsession with the land of Indus

 

[pc_alt]

The greek name given by Herodotus was 'Indos' not India. The latin word indika literally translates into "from indos"..And this word was taken from persians who couldnt pronounce the 's' well in sindhu.So the original word was sindu not hindu.. And its important to point the greeks used it for many regions like mentioned above but here precisely it was used for the indus valley around sindh..not the ganges not the tamil /deccan or central peninsula nor the fart fetched bengal or seven sisters.

Clearly, Indos or Indika became India later on. And that applied to the entire land mass on this side of Sindhu, and not just the Sindhu valley.

Indus valley civilization had long since faded. Europeans were interested in the spice trade from South India which they used to purchase via Arabs.