Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

Pliny: Position, Boundaries, and Physical Characteristics of India

BOOK VI. c. 17 (21). But where the chain of Hemodus rises the communities are settled, and the nations of India, which begin there, adjoin not only the eastern sea but also the southern, which we have already mentioned under the name of the Indian Ocean. That part which faces the east runs in a straight line to the bend where the Indian Ocean begins, and measures 1875 miles. Then from this bend to the south up to the river Indus, which forms the western boundary of India, the distance, as given by Eratosthenes, is 2475 miles. But many authors have represented the total length of its coast as being a sail of forty days and forty nights, and its length from north to south as being 2850 miles. Agrippa has estimated its length at 3300 miles, and its breadth at 2300. Poseidonios has measured it from north-east to south-east, placing it opposite to Gaul, which he was measuring from north-west to south-west, making the whole of India lie to west of Gaul. Hence he has shown by undoubted proofs that India being opposite to Gaul must be refreshed by the blowing of the west wind, and have in consequence a salubrious climate. Here the appearance of the heavens is entirely changed, and the stars rise differently; there are two summers in the year, and two harvests having winter between them, while the Etesian winds are prevalent; and during our winter the breezes there are light and the seas navigable. In this country the nations and cities are numberless should one attempt to reckon them all up. It was opened up to our knowledge not only by the arms of Alexander the Great and of the kings who succeeded him, Seleucus and Antiochus, as well as by their admiral Patrokles who sailed round even into the Hyrcanian and Caspian seas, but also by certain Greek authors, who resided with Indian kings, such as Megasthenes, and Dionysius who was sent by Philadelphus, and have thus informed us of the power and resources of the Indian nations. However, there is no room for a careful examination of their statements, they are so diverse and incredible. The companions of Alexander the Great have written that in that tract of India, which he subdued, there were 5000 towns, none less than Cos--that its nations were nine in number--that India was the third part of all the world, and that the multitude of its inhabitants was past reckoning. For this there was probably a good reason, since the Indians almost alone among the nations have never emigrated from their own borders. Their kings from Father Bacchus down to Alexander the Great are reckoned at 153 over a space of 6451 years and three months. The vast size of their rivers fills the mind with wonder. It is recorded that Alexander on no day had sailed on the Indus less than 600 stadia, and was unable to reach its mouth in less than five months and a few days, and yet it appears that it is smaller than the Ganges. Seneca, who was our fellow-citizen and composed a treatise on India, has given the number of its rivers at 60, and that of its nations at 118. It would be as great a difficulty should we attempt to enumerate its mountains. The chains of Imavos, Hemodus, Paropanisus, and Caucasus are mutually connected, and from their base the whole country sinks down into a plain of immense extent and bears a great resemblance to Egypt. But that our account of the geography of these regions may be better understood, we shall tread in the steps of Alexander the Great, whose marches were measured by Diognetes and Baeton.

BooK II. c. 73 (75). In the same way they inform us that in the town of Syene, which is 5000 stadia south of Alexandria, no shadow is cast at noon on the day of the solstice, and that a well dug for the purpose of the experiment was completely illuminated, from which it appears that the sun is vertical at that place, and Onesicritus writes that in India this is the case at that time at the river Hypasis. . . . In the country of the Oretes, a people of India, is the mountain Maleus, near which shadows in the summer are cast to the south and in winter to the north. The stars of the Great Bear are visible there for fifteen days only. In India also, at Patala, a celebrated port, the sun rises on the right hand and the shadows fall to the south. It was observed, while Alexander was staying there the seven stars of the Bear were seen only at the early part of the evening. Onesicritus, one of his generals, states that in those parts of India where there are no shadows the Bear is not seen; these places, he says, are called 'ascia,' and time there is not reckoned by hours.

C. 108 (112). One part of the earth . . . stretches out to the greatest extent from east to west, that is, from India to the Pillars of Hercules at Gades, being a distance of 8578 miles according to Artemidorus, but according to Isidorus 9818 miles.

Book VI. c. 16 (18). This nation (the Bactrian) lies at the back of Mount Paropanisus over against the sources of the river Indus.

From: McCrindle, J. W. Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature. Westminster: Archibald Constable, 1901, 107-110.

^Who wrote each of those 4 quotes? Do you know, genius?

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

^Who wrote each of those 4 quotes? Do you know, genius?

I obviously do, since I have read it.

Now clearly, the Greeks knew India as the area approximately India+Pakistan.

I think I have made my point regarding the boundaries of ancient India.

Cheers

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

Er....your "analysis" is highly suspect. Please provide quotes by ancient historians or writers clearly stating that India is comprised of merely the banks of the Indus.

I suspect that you will not find many.

All the historian's quotes from basically before 0 AD take "India" to mean Pakistan. Example, is Herodotus.

[36] So far the whole expedition was over country known, if imperfectly, to the Greeks. Now we have to follow the conquering hero more closely as he leads us into an unknown land away to the east, known as "the farthest region of the inhabited world towards the east, beyond which lies the endless sandy desert void of inhabitants." And all the while the great land of India (today's Bharat) lay beyond, and beyond again was China, and away far over the ocean sea lay America—and they knew it not.
The Baldwin Project: A Book of Discovery by M. B. Synge

There's actually references from Herodotus's books that show Pakistan was the "easternmost part of the world". Here's one quote where he describes modern India as a desolate land.

"So much for the parts of Asia west of the Persians. But what is beyond the Persians, and Medes, and Saspires, and Colchians, east and toward the rising sun, this is bounded on the one hand by the Red Sea, and to the north by the Caspian Sea and the Araxes river, which flows toward the sun's rising. [2] As far as India, Asia is an inhabited land; but thereafter, all to the east is desolation, nor can anyone say what kind of land is there."
book_04

There are of couse more accurate quotes from Herodotus preceisly describing the Indus as the Eastern edge of the word, and referring to this as India. I will find them when I get the time.

For Herodotus the Indus was not merely the boundary of Persian India, but the limit of the known world

Hecateus's map of the world (600 BC) (Indus River = India, no Ganges yet)


Herodotus's map of the world (450 BC) (Indus present, still not Ganges in India)


Dicaearchus (300 BC) - NOW the Ganges appears and the classical Greeks are calling India the subcontinent!


Look at all these maps. When the Indus River and Indus Valley were named, it was around 2500 BC. By 300 BC only foreigners started referring to the the subcontinent as India. What does this mean to you? It means that the initial 2,000 years of Indian history (Vedic, Indus Valley, Gandharan etc etc is ALL Pakistani history). The latter 2,000 years of Indian history is a combination of Indian and Pakistani histories in the foreign texts. You need to understand that the heyday of Indian history occurred in Pakistan. The Vedic period occurred in Pakistan. Vedic mathematics was predominantly Pakistani, Panini was an ancient Pakistan, Bhramagupta was an ancient Pakistani etc etc.

Er....silly argument.

Ancient India was the land "east of the Indus", as envisioned by most of the explorers of that time, my quotes justify this.

Now that Pakistan decided to separate....too bad. We still retain the name.

Not according to Herodotus as per my quote above. The land "east of the Indus" was desolate land according to him. Therefore all the history that Herodotus and everyone else before him writes on IVC, Vedism, Aryans, Gandharans, etc etc, is all Pakistani history. Nothing to do with India.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Some questions I had-

All these quotes and descriptions from personalities in history, did they actually use the word "India" to describe the region the were referring to, or is it a translation by modern historians?

Secondly, even if the references did indeed use the word "India" to describe the sub-continent, and I realize that the discourse over whether that meant current Pakistan primarily or Pakistan and India is still continuing, would it not simply interpret to a general term describing a region?

After all, before the Arab States were created, the region was simply Arabia was it not, or Africa, before the colonial powers demarcated it. So shouldn't the word "India", as used before the British conquest, be taken as a general reference to the sub-continent, similar to references to Arabia, Asia, the orient etc.?

The other issue that keeps coming up, related to my second point, is the canard of "Pakistan separating from India" - a separation could only occur if there was ever a united nation called India, and the closest the region ever came to that, to my knowledge, would be under the British. But even that would be as a colony, not a "nation, country or state", and with several quasi-independent princely states and territories. Before that we had a divided land, with several independent kingdoms, territories, princely states etc. So there isn't really a question of "separation", since the land was already divided, but more of the different regions and peoples, that were colonized and occupied by the British, coming together to create two nations, where before many existed.

I am not a historian, so any clarifications of erroneous assumptions or statements I made is welcome

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

Some questions I had-

All these quotes and descriptions from personalities in history, did they actually use the word "India" to describe the region the were referring to, or is it a translation by modern historians?

not sure, but good question. there could be something in the translation that's being missed. After all, why name the Ganges as part of "India"? It was referred to it as Gangetica for sure, as per some genuine map.

Secondly, even if the references did indeed use the word "India" to describe the sub-continent, and I realize that the discourse over whether that meant current Pakistan primarily or Pakistan and India is still continuing, would it not simply interpret to a general term describing a region?

Absolutely (see Churchill's quote). India was never a country. It was just a geographical reference to a region by foreigners. The only indigenous people to call their country Ind, were the Vedic Pakistanis.

After all, before the Arab States were created, the region was simply Arabia was it not, or Africa, before the colonial powers demarcated it. So shouldn't the word "India", as used before the British conquest, be taken as a general reference to the sub-continent, similar to references to Arabia, Asia, the orient etc.?

Yes

The other issue that keeps coming up, related to my second point, is the canard of "Pakistan separating from India" - a separation could only occur if there was ever a united nation called India, and the closest the region ever came to that, to my knowledge, would be under the British. But even that would be as a colony, not a "nation, country or state", and with several quasi-independent princely states and territories. Before that we had a divided land, with several independent kingdoms, territories, princely states etc. So there isn't really a question of "separation", since the land was already divided, but more of the different regions and peoples, that were colonized and occupied by the British, coming together to create two nations, where before many existed.

Yes, exactly true. Pakistan has very little shared history with India, except the recent period of colonialization. There are huge differences in the ancestries of these people.

[Flintlock]

Thanks Roadrunner. You've made some interesting observations

Originally Posted by roadrunner

All the historian's quotes from basically before 0 AD take "India" to mean Pakistan. Example, is Herodotus.

Lets start off by changing this date to 300BC, for the moment.

[36] So far the whole expedition was over country known, if imperfectly, to the Greeks. Now we have to follow the conquering hero more closely as he leads us into an unknown land away to the east, known as "the farthest region of the inhabited world towards the east, beyond which lies the endless sandy desert void of inhabitants." And all the while the great land of India (today's Bharat) lay beyond, and beyond again was China, and away far over the ocean sea lay America—and they knew it not.

What do we know about Alexander's conquest of India?

He reached what is now modern Pakistan, defeated Porus, and made him a satrap.

(327-326 BCE)

Then, he tried to conquer further east, but his army revolted against him, and he was forced to turn back.

As a result, he was forced to turn southwards and conquered the lands till the mouth of the Indus.

Here's an account of Alexander's meeting with Chandragupta Maurya:

"Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth." Plutarch 62-3

Plutarch, Plutarch, Alexander (English).: Alexander (ed. Bernadotte Perrin)

This proves that Alexander didn't think of the land beyond what he had conquered as "barren", but he knew of the existence of a powerful empire, which he dared not conquer.

These unknown lands couldn't be described, since he hadn't visited them, even though he had met their future ruler at Taxila.

So, Alexander never really conquered the real India. He just reached the northwestern part of it.

Later on, around 300BCE, when Greeks saw the whole of India, they started showing it in their maps.

There's actually references from Herodotus's books that show Pakistan was the "easternmost part of the world". Here's one quote where he describes modern India as a desolate land.

"So much for the parts of Asia west of the Persians. But what is beyond the Persians, and Medes, and Saspires, and Colchians, east and toward the rising sun, this is bounded on the one hand by the Red Sea, and to the north by the Caspian Sea and the Araxes river, which flows toward the sun's rising. [2] As far as India, Asia is an inhabited land; but thereafter, all to the east is desolation, nor can anyone say what kind of land is there."
book_04

Yes, and as we know he probably didn't cross over the Thar desert, in what is now Rajasthan, so he didn't enter the region of modern India.

Look at all these maps. When the Indus River and Indus Valley were named, it was around 2500 BC. By 300 BC only foreigners started referring to the the subcontinent as India.

It was after around 327BCE, when Alexander Invaded the region of modern Pakistan, did the the Greeks first contact the region of Modern India.

After that, Selucid and the Indo-Greeks maintained contact with the Mauryans and Sunga Dynasty, and established the Gandhara kingdom.

So, they discovered the whole of India and henceforth described the entire region of India+Pakistan as India.

What does this mean to you? It means that the initial 2,000 years of Indian history (Vedic, Indus Valley, Gandharan etc etc is ALL Pakistani history).

Please limit the discussion to the suggested topic. The IVC and Gandhara can be discussed later.

The latter 2,000 years of Indian history is a combination of Indian and Pakistani histories in the foreign texts. You need to understand that the heyday of Indian history occurred in Pakistan.

I don't understand what you mean by "heyday". There are several great periods of Indian history apart from the Gandhara kingdom and whichever others were based in Pak+Afg.

But once again, we are off topic. I guess we should stick to the nomenclature only.

The Vedic period occurred in Pakistan. Vedic mathematics was predominantly Pakistani, Panini was an ancient Pakistan, Bhramagupta was an ancient Pakistani etc etc.

The Rigveda, the earliest veda, gives the most importance, and talks most about the Saraswati River.
This river is present in both countries.

It mentions several rivers apart from them, including the Indus, the Yamuna and the Ganges.

So saying that the Rigvedic people were "Ancient Pakistanis" is simply not correct.

Not according to Herodotus as per my quote above. The land "east of the Indus" was desolate land according to him.

That is because he never ventured beyond the deserts of Thar.

Therefore all the history that Herodotus and everyone else before him writes on IVC, Vedism, Aryans, Gandharans, etc etc, is all Pakistani history. Nothing to do with India.

IVC....different discussion.....but still.....present in both India and Pakistan

Vedism: Earliest Veda Rigveda is centered around Saraswati, and mentions most major rivers of the subcontinent....so...no.

Aryans....???

Gandharans: Yes, the Gandharans are the only people you can claim to be part of Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as central Asia.

Still, their religion/culture of Buddhism came from the East and their sculpture/art came from the Greeks.

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

All these quotes and descriptions from personalities in history, did they actually use the word "India" to describe the region the were referring to, or is it a translation by modern historians?

They used either India or variations of the word like Indou/Indike etc.

Secondly, even if the references did indeed use the word "India" to describe the sub-continent, and I realize that the discourse over whether that meant current Pakistan primarily or Pakistan and India is still continuing, would it not simply interpret to a general term describing a region?

The Greeks described whatever region they knew east of Afghanistan and south of Caucusus as India.

Initially, they discovered only the region of Pakistan, so they named it India.
Later on, when they explored the whole subcontinent, they added these parts to India.

So, the complete description of India, as per the Greeks, is the entire subcontinent.

Most descriptions after 300BC describe India as the land "east of the Indus".

After all, before the Arab States were created, the region was simply Arabia was it not, or Africa, before the colonial powers demarcated it. So shouldn't the word "India", as used before the British conquest, be taken as a general reference to the sub-continent, similar to references to Arabia, Asia, the orient etc.?

Exactly. That is how it is used in current historical texts.

The other issue that keeps coming up, related to my second point, is the canard of "Pakistan separating from India" - a separation could only occur if there was ever a united nation called India, and the closest the region ever came to that, to my knowledge, would be under the British. But even that would be as a colony, not a "nation, country or state", and with several quasi-independent princely states and territories. Before that we had a divided land, with several independent kingdoms, territories, princely states etc. So there isn't really a question of "separation", since the land was already divided, but more of the different regions and peoples, that were colonized and occupied by the British, coming together to create two nations, where before many existed.

The idea of modern India is based on a more broad look at history, rather than kingdoms.

It is based on the fact that the subcontinent shares a heavily intertwined history, in which each and every part has influenced the other at some point of time.

This shared culture and history was what made India one, not the british conquest or any other conquest.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

What do we know about Alexander's conquest of India?

He reached what is now modern Pakistan, defeated Porus, and made him a satrap.

(327-326 BCE)

Then, he tried to conquer further east, but his army revolted against him, and he was forced to turn back.

As a result, he was forced to turn southwards and conquered the lands till the mouth of the Indus.

Here's an account of Alexander's meeting with Chandragupta Maurya:

"Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth." Plutarch 62-3

Plutarch, Plutarch, Alexander (English).: Alexander (ed. Bernadotte Perrin)

This proves that Alexander didn't think of the land beyond what he had conquered as "barren", but he knew of the existence of a powerful empire, which he dared not conquer.

These unknown lands couldn't be described, since he hadn't visited them, even though he had met their future ruler at Taxila.

So, Alexander never really conquered the real India. He just reached the northwestern part of it.

What does this show? You're going off topic as usual. I was referring to Herodotus. You know that Alexander and Herodotus were two different people don't you? Later on after Herodotus, when Pakistan became a satrapy of the Greeks, they knew then there was more beyond Pakistan, but until that time, they considered modern Bharat as desolate with no history at all.

Later on, around 300BCE, when Greeks saw the whole of India, they started showing it in their maps.

300 BC! So that means all the Indian history prior to this time referred only to Pakistan. Well done, you finally got the point I've been trying to drill through your head!

Yes, and as we know he probably didn't cross over the Thar desert, in what is now Rajasthan, so he didn't enter the region of modern India.

Yes genius, so Herodotus's accounts do not refer to modern India. They are all Pakistani. Gold digging ants = part of Pakistan's history etc etc

It was after around 327BCE, when Alexander Invaded the region of modern Pakistan, did the the Greeks first contact the region of Modern India.

The Greeks did not contact India until around 200 BC.

After that, Selucid and the Indo-Greeks maintained contact with the Mauryans and Sunga Dynasty, and established the Gandhara kingdom.

Indo-Greeks didn't have anything to do with Gandhara and certainly didn't establish it. Sheesh. This isn't for you, you will never understand it. Gandhara was established well before Alexander's invasion.

The Rigveda, the earliest veda, gives the most importance, and talks most about the Saraswati River.
This river is present in both countries.

Well, that's nonsense. The Rig Veda refers to the largest and mightiest river of them all as the Indus.

Sindhu in might surpasses all the streams that flow.
2 Varuṇa cut the channels for thy forward course, O Sindhu, when thou rannest on to win the race.Thou speedest o’er precipitous ridges of the earth, when thou art Lord and Leader of these moving floods.
3 His roar is lifted up to heaven above the earth: he puts forth endless vigour with a flash of light.
Like floods of rain that fall in thunder from the cloud, so Sindhu rushes on bellowing like a bull.
4 Like mothers to their calves, like milch kine with their milk, so, Sindhu, unto thee the roaring rivers run.
Thou leadest as a warrior king thine army's wings what time thou comest in the van of these swift streams.
5 Favour ye this my laud, O Gan!gā, Yamunā, O Sutudri, Paruṣṇī and Sarasvatī:
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN LXXV. The Rivers.

You'll notice the Indus (Sindhu) river is the mightiest of them all, the Saravasti (Ghaggar-Haraki River) or Saravati River is just mentioned as a smaller one in this verse above.

It mentions several rivers apart from them, including the Indus, the Yamuna and the Ganges.

The Ganges is mentioned once..the Indus about 100 times. The Ganges ia minor River to the Vedic people, just as most of modern Bharat was a minor part of the Vedic people's country.

So saying that the Rigvedic people were "Ancient Pakistanis" is simply not correct.

Look into the Rig Veda. The major Rivier is the Indus. The Saravasti is a smaller river, the Ganges is virtually non existent. Is it any surprise that the Vedic people talked most of the land in which they lived? (i.e. Pakistan).

That is because he never ventured beyond the deserts of Thar.

EXACTLY genius!! So all the pre 0 AD history of India refers to Pakistan. I thought you'd understood this by now!?!?

IVC....different discussion.....but still.....present in both India and Pakistan

MAINLY in Pakistan 70-80% imo.

Vedism: Earliest Veda Rigveda is centered around Saraswati, and mentions most major rivers of the subcontinent....so...no.

Majority of the Vedic people and country were in Pakistan. Only a part of Indian Punjab was additional.

Aryans....???

Gandharans: Yes, the Gandharans are the only people you can claim to be part of Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as central Asia.

Aryans and Gandharans have nothing to do with modern India.

Still, their religion/culture of Buddhism came from the East and their sculpture/art came from the Greeks.

Buddhism was developed by the Gandharans. It was Gandharan Buddhism that gave rise to Mahayana Buddhism, Tantric Buddhism etc. From here it moved to East Asia. You don't seem to understand Gandhara was an advanced civilization, and developed many things on its own. It was important for Vedic Mathematics, which is more Pakistani than Indian. In fact it was Panini and Pingula that lived in Gandhara.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

Exactly. That is how it is used in current historical texts.

The idea of modern India is based on a more broad look at history, rather than kingdoms.

It is based on the fact that the subcontinent shares a heavily intertwined history, in which each and every part has influenced the other at some point of time.

This shared culture and history was what made India one, not the british conquest or any other conquest.

So we are agreed then, in that context it doesn't refer to a "nation" or state", but a general region, that was comprised of several smaller states and peoples, with distinct political, cultural, physical and linguistic differences. In that sense, the reference to "India" today is highly unrelated to the use of the word "India" in the historical sense.

With respect to "sharing history and influence", that is the case with almost all nations or regions that border each other. The South East Asian states also have a tremendous amount of intertwined history, as do the Arab countries, the European countries etc. So that is a fallacious argument to make for "India" being "united".

With respect to the accounts attributed to the ancients, do they not actually prove that there was never a "nation called India", since they devised the name, demarcated its boundaries, with the earlier travelers considering "India" to be primarily the region that is currently Pakistan, and then slowly, as they discovered today's Bharat (using this term to avoid confusion), they extended the name to cover more and more of the region, which was still composed of smaller nations. So even these accounts would indicate that the idea of a "United India" is a myth - the name itself was created by outsiders, who simply expanded it to cover more territory over hundreds of years.

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

So we are agreed that in that context it doesn't refer to a "nation" or state", but a general region, that was comprised of several smaller states and peoples, with distinct political, cultural, physical and linguistic differences. In that sense, the reference to "India" today is highly unrelated to the use of the word "India" in the historical sense.

Historically it was referred to as a region.

But after being united under the Mughals for a long time, and the British, and the study of ancient pan-Indian kingdoms, the idea of an Indian nation began to develop.

This idea was well established at the time of Independence, when Hindus and Muslims had fought together to oust the foreigners.

Unfortunately, some muslim leaders did not believe in this vision of a modern, secular India.

Hence, they decided to separate.

With respect to "sharing history and influence", that is the case with almost all nations or regions that border each other. The South East Asian states also have a tremendous amount of intertwined history, as do the Arab countries, the European countries etc. So that is a fallacious argument to make for "India" being "united".

Its not about arguments. Its about a vision, an Idea, a brilliant concept.

How many years did it take for the European Union to form? Imagine the advantages if this had been done earlier.

Indians at the time of Independence shared the historical concept of the Indic civilization, along with the vision of a united secular India.

With respect to the accounts attributed to the ancients, do they not actually prove that there was never a "nation called India", since they devised the name, demarcated its boundaries, with the earlier travelers considering "India" to be primarily the region that is currently Pakistan, and then slowly, as they discovered today's Bharat (using this term to avoid confusion), they extended the name to cover more and more of the region, which was still composed of smaller nations. So even these accounts would indicate that the idea of a "United India" is a myth - the name itself was created by outsiders, who simply expanded it to cover more territory over hundreds of years.

Noone denies that the name was created by outsiders.

But then isn't it outsiders who give us our identity?

Why do Punjabis, Sindhis and Pakhtoons call themselves Pakistani? Don't they all have different histories and ethnicities?

Its our ability to see similarities, rather than differences, that makes us a nation.

Identity is formed when one people differentiate themselves from the others, while recognizing similarities among themselves.

The formation of an Indian identity has continued throughout history, starting with descriptions of the Greeks and Romans, and coming of age with the freedom struggle.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

So we are agreed that in that context it doesn't refer to a "nation" or state", but a general region, that was comprised of several smaller states and peoples, with distinct political, cultural, physical and linguistic differences. In that sense, the reference to "India" today is highly unrelated to the use of the word "India" in the historical sense.

With respect to "sharing history and influence", that is the case with almost all nations or regions that border each other. The South East Asian states also have a tremendous amount of intertwined history, as do the Arab countries, the European countries etc. So that is a fallacious argument to make for "India" being "united".

With respect to the accounts attributed to the ancients, do they not actually prove that there was never a "nation called India", since they devised the name, demarcated its boundaries, with the earlier travelers considering "India" to be primarily the region that is currently Pakistan, and then slowly, as they discovered today's Bharat (using this term to avoid confusion), they extended the name to cover more and more of the region, which was still composed of smaller nations. So even these accounts would indicate that the idea of a "United India" is a myth - the name itself was created by outsiders, who simply expanded it to cover more territory over hundreds of years.

Very good summary AM, and exactly the point we're making in this thread. The last sentence, however, I would say, the name itself was created by the Vedic Pakistanis (from their country, Sindhu), and then foreigners such as Greeks who werent too good at geography then started expanding the territory (regardless of the wishes of the Vedic descendants whose ancestors coined the name) - but Ind was never a country as you say quite rightly, it was just a reference by foreigners to the region. The only time it was a geographical place was when it was Saptha Sindhu (or even today in the form of Sindh, Pakistan).

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

Originally Posted by Stealth Assassin

Historically it was referred to as a region.

But after being united under the Mughals for a long time, and the British, and the study of ancient pan-Indian kingdoms, the idea of an Indian nation began to develop.

This idea was well established at the time of Independence, when Hindus and Muslims had fought together to oust the foreigners.

Unfortunately, some muslim leaders did not believe in this vision of a modern, secular India.

Hence, they decided to separate.

Correction - they did not believe in the idea of a single Bharat - they did not believe in the assurances of equal status in a single Bharat, but it is egregious to suggest that they were against "modernization"; and Quaid-e-Azam's own words indicate a dream of a Nation where religion would have minimal impact on the affairs of state, so they were not against the idea of freedom and equality for all, irrespective of caste, color or creed.

The presence of an "Idea" does not indicate "existence" - that comment in fact bolsters the argument that a monolithic entity called India never existed. Just because some Muslims believe in the idea of a Pan Islamic Caliphate does not mean that it is either a very good idea, or that its presence (the idea's) somehow justifies in the future, if a caliphate were to become reality, the existence of such an entity while it was merely a concept.

The idea of a Pakistani state obviously proved to be just as strong as that of creating Bharat.

Its not about arguments. Its about a vision, an Idea, a brilliant concept.

How many years did it take for the European Union to form? Imagine the advantages if this had been done earlier.

Indians at the time of Independence shared the historical concept of the Indic civilization, along with the vision of a united secular India.

Yes, and for Pakistanis, the brilliant idea, concept and vision was Pakistan, a nation that was never a part of any "Indian" nation.

The EU is not a good example of a "united India", it is an association/cooperative framework of several nations, all of whom retain their independence and sovereignty, and no EU member calls themselves an EUian, they are French, British German etc.. If I'm not mistaken, such a proposal for extensive autonomy for the Muslim majority States, was shot down by the congress leadership when discussions over the future of the subcontinent were going on. But SAARC could be a good example of such cooperation.

Noone denies that the name was created by outsiders.

But then isn't it outsiders who give us our identity?

Why do Punjabis, Sindhis and Pakhtoons call themselves Pakistani? Don't they all have different histories and ethnicities?

I stand corrected on that one, apparently "India" derived from Indus from Sindhu etc.
We call ourselves Pakistanis because that is what we chose to name our nation. You named yours India, thats fine, but the argument is over whether that means that Bharat has any claim to suggest that "we were all once one", just because you chose a name that coincides with that used to describe a region composed of several nations.

Its our ability to see similarities, rather than differences, that makes us a nation.

Identity is formed when one people differentiate themselves from the others, while recognizing similarities among themselves.

The formation of an Indian identity has continued throughout history, starting with descriptions of the Greeks and Romans, and coming of age with the freedom struggle.

Correct, and that process truly started in 1947 for both countries, before then, the "shared identity" was a result of a shared occupation and desire to rid ourselves of that occupation. Notice how quickly that "shared identity" fell apart, when the British decided to leave, and millions wanted a nation of their own. I doubt your claim of "a building of Indian identity over centuries" was a widespread ideal amongst the masses of the different nations of the subcontinent - such an idea is pretty much akin to that of a Caliphate - some intellectuals may talk of it, and may have envisioned it, but as history has shown, the people rejected it come crunch time.

But SAARC is still there, once Kashmir is resolved.

[roadrunner]

Originally Posted by AgNoStIc MuSliM

We call ourselves Pakistanis because that is what we chose to name our nation. You named yours India, thats fine, but the argument is over whether that means that Bharat has any claim to suggest that "we were all once one", just because you chose a name that coincides with that used to describe a region composed of several nations.

....and the fact that a lot of Pakistani history comes under the banner of "Indian history". Personally I don't mind them calling themselves India, so long as they make it clear that Gandhara, IVC, Panini, Vedic civilization etc etc were not theirs. But they don't! Far from it, they create lots of websites claiming Panini was an Indian, like them! This all boils down to the "we were al once one" claim, and it's nonsense. Even genetics has disproved it. If I find some time, I'll mention it.

[Flintlock]

Originally Posted by roadrunner

What does this show? You're going off topic as usual. I was referring to Herodotus. You know that Alexander and Herodotus were two different people don't you? Later on after Herodotus, when Pakistan became a satrapy of the Greeks, they knew then there was more beyond Pakistan, but until that time, they considered modern Bharat as desolate with no history at all.

It shows that around 327 BC, the greeks learnt about the existence of a land
beyond their current idea of India.


Alexander himself met Chandragupta Maurya, who later ruled the Mauryan empire and overthrew the Nandas.

300 BC! So that means all the Indian history prior to this time referred only to Pakistan. Well done, you finally got the point I've been trying to drill through your head!

Well done!! You have made another one of you sweeping and grossly incorrect statements!!

Yes genius, so Herodotus's accounts do not refer to modern India. They are all Pakistani. Gold digging ants = part of Pakistan's history etc etc

Herodotus lived in 440 BC, before Greek conquests.

The Greeks did not contact India until around 200 BC.

327 BCE to be precise.

After that,

In 303 BCE, Seleucus I led an army to the Indus, where he encountered Chandragupta.
The confrontation ended with a peace treaty, and "an intermarriage agreement" , meaning either a dynastic marriage or an agreement for intermarriage between Indians and Greeks. Accordingly, Seleucus ceded to Chandragupta his northwestern territories, possibly as far as Arachosia(Pakistan and Southern Afghanistan) and received 500 war elephants (which played a key role in the victory of Seleucus at the Battle of Ipsus):

Around that time, Megasthenes described India in 300 BCE in the quote i gave earlier.

Megasthenes also travelled all around India as far as Pataliputra (Patna) and Madurai (Pandya Kingdom), and recorded descriptions of his travels.

Here's a quote about Megasthenes by Arrian:

"Megasthenes lived with Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, and often speaks of his visiting Sandracottus (Chandragupta), the king of the Indians."

Clearly, he describes Chandragupta as the king of the Indians.


From the above, it is apparent that the Greeks knew of India as the land "east of the Indus" by the year 300BCE.

Indo-Greeks didn't have anything to do with Gandhara and certainly didn't establish it. Sheesh. This isn't for you, you will never understand it. Gandhara was established well before Alexander's invasion.

Sheesh...the Indo Greeks ruled Gandhara for a nice period of time. Check your facts.

Well, that's nonsense. The Rig Veda refers to the largest and mightiest river of them all as the Indus.

The verse you quoted is one one of many.

the Majority of the verses, especially the earlier ones, mention Saraswati in them and talk of it as the greatest river of all.

Later verses diminish the Saraswati and give more importance to the Indus. This is considered as an indication that the Saraswati river was drying up.

The Ganges is mentioned once..the Indus about 100 times. The Ganges is minor River to the Vedic people,

The Indus is mentioned very less.

You perhaps mistake the word "saptasindhu" for Indus.

Saptasindhu refers to the Saraswati and six other rivers, with Saraswati being the most prominent.

David Frawley mentions them as Sindhu, Ashikni, Parushni, Sarasvati, Yamuna, Ganga and Sarayu.

The Vedic descriptions match the region of modern Northern Punjab.

Also, the people described are nomadic, so we can't really put a specific location to them.

Look into the Rig Veda. The major Rivier is the Indus. The Saravasti is a smaller river, the Ganges is virtually non existent. Is it any surprise that the Vedic people talked most of the land in which they lived? (i.e. Pakistan).

That is incorrect. The Saraswati is given prime importance ,except toward later verses.

Indus and the Ganges is to a lesser extent.

EXACTLY genius!! So all the pre 0 AD history of India refers to Pakistan. I thought you'd understood this by now!?!?

Er....no....you are wrong.

Pre circa 300 AD, the Greeks hadn't discovered the whole of Ancient India. thats all.

MAINLY in Pakistan 70-80% imo.

Highly debatable, in the light of newer excavations and the present view of historians.

Majority of the Vedic people and country were in Pakistan. Only a part of Indian Punjab was additional.

Vedic people were nomadic. So, they can't be ascribed to any one side of the border.

They travelled as far as the Ganges.

Also, they seem to have regarded the Saraswati river as the most important, jjudging by the Rigveda.

More likely is the following map:

Aryans and Gandharans have nothing to do with modern India.

I don't know what you mean by aryans. There is no civilization or people called aryans.

Gandharan is located geographically outside India. But its cultural center lay to the east.

I can't say much about their ethnicity of the Gandharans, though.

Buddhism was developed by the Gandharans. It was Gandharan Buddhism that gave rise to Mahayana Buddhism, Tantric Buddhism etc. From here it moved to East Asia.

I am not sure....I shall get back on this later.

You don't seem to understand Gandhara was an advanced civilization, and developed many things on its own.

Of course, it was a great civilization, and a golden period of history of ancient India.

[AgNoStIc MuSliM]

This map indicates the possible ancient course of the Saraswati (Of course some people consider the Helmand of Afghanistan to be the rigvedic Saraswati as well. Another question about the Saraswati, it is referred to as the "Great Sindhu" which would be the name of the Indus, so how does that fit in? Is the Saraswati actually the Indus? Their paths are almost parallel in this map.