Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[Goodperson]

Well if Pakistan was named "India", it would defeat the purpose of highlighting the differences between Pakistan and the rest of India.

Now that Pakistan is a reality, its inhabitants are looking for more concrete (read historical) reasons for the existence of their nation, and as a result, their interpretation of history is clashing with ours.

For example, the history of the subcontinent is generally referred to as "History of India" or "History of Indian subcontinent". However, it is not difficult to realize that Pakistan would have serious objections to this.

India has chosen its name what is the problem ? India did not have
objection when Pakistan (Land of Pure) chose its name, Nor India has problems when East Bengal chose its name as Bangladesh (Country of Bengalis).

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Its "original reference" was the region of eastern Pakistan, which quickly expanded eastwards to its current usage. Its that simple.

I don't understand why the original reference is so important. What is important is the most widespread meaning of the word.

Also worth mentioning that its original reference was also to a region, and not to a country named Pakistan.

Ultimately, the clinching fact is that as early as 300 BC, the word was being used to describe the entire subcontinent, so there should be absolutely no doubt that the adoption of the term by modern India is neither dishonest nor incorrect.

The original reference is by herodutus is it not? Does he articulate his understanding of India to be East of the Indus?

The wisespread meaning of the word continued to be a reference to a region, not a nation, so while the useage of the word India for the contemporaray Republic is not dishonest by any means (Name yourselves what you wish) it is incorrect, in the sense that a nation calling itself 'Asia' or Europe would be incorrect.

Secondly, I do not believe any Pakistanis want to rename Pakistan as India here - just that the roots and the origin of the name referred to 'a large part of the lands comprising modern Pakistan'.

The most accurate statement would be: "Some of the areas which make up modern Eastern Pakistan were first described as India, and within the next couple of centuries, as early as 300 BC, the term was used to describe the entire subcontinent".

Herodutus does not make that distinction from what I can tell, but Megasthenes does, so I would exclude the "east of the Indus" part.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India has chosen its name what is the problem ? India did not have
objection when Pakistan (Land of Pure) chose its name,

"Land of Pure" is only one interpretation of the word, an acronym representing the various provinces making up Pakistan formed a strong basis for coining that name as well.

 

[jeypore]

Well if Pakistan was named "India", it would defeat the purpose of highlighting the differences between Pakistan and the rest of India.

Now that Pakistan is a reality, its inhabitants are looking for more concrete (read historical) reasons for the existence of their nation, and as a result, their interpretation of history is clashing with ours.

For example, the history of the subcontinent is generally referred to as "History of India" or "History of Indian subcontinent". However, it is not difficult to realize that Pakistan would have serious objections to this.

Flint the reason i asked this question was at the time of partition, Jinnah wanted no association with India, sinces he wanted a Muslim state and he correlated India with Hindu states. Hence, majority of India's history is controlled by the Hindu culture.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Now that Pakistan is a reality, its inhabitants are looking for more concrete (read historical) reasons for the existence of their nation, and as a result, their interpretation of history is clashing with ours.

For example, the history of the subcontinent is generally referred to as "History of India" or "History of Indian subcontinent". However, it is not difficult to realize that Pakistan would have serious objections to this.

Pakistanis are doing nothing different than Indians in creating the narrative of the "Indian civilization' and the 'ancient Indian nation' (an analogy to Ummah really).

You are seeing this now as the literacy rates rise in Pakistan, and technology and easier access to information allow for more thought and introspection into the roots of Pakistan and its people. Its a natural process ocurring as a nation gets more invovled in a discourse over matters of social, historical and political import.

The only issue with 'History of India' is that it confuses the contemporary republic with the ancient region of India. Personally I prefer 'History of South Asia' for clarity.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Flint the reason i asked this question was at the time of partition, Jinnah wanted no association with India, sinces he wanted a Muslim state and he correlated India with Hindu states. Hence, majority of India's history is controlled by the Hindu culture.

Jinnah was surprised by the choice of "India" by Nehru - he assumed it would be Hindustan or Bharat.

 

[Vinod2070]

Pakistan was the original India.

Since the earliest usage of the word 'India' seems to have been found in Greek writings, that is where we woudl have to go to understand the origins of the word.

Sir why don't you decide once and for all!

Are you India or are you "not India"?

The second one seems to be the predominant identity that Pakistan chose for itself.

 

[Flintlock]

The original reference is by herodutus is it not? Does he articulate his understanding of India to be East of the Indus?

Well the assumption is that the definition of the word expanded , and did not contract, so it is likely that Herodotus himself thought of India as the land eastwards of the Indus.

Obviously, I may be wrong, but common sense dictates that the definition would not contract.

The wisespread meaning of the word continued to be a reference to a region, not a nation, so while the useage of the word India for the contemporaray Republic is not dishonest by any means (Name yourselves what you wish) it is incorrect, in the sense that a nation calling itself 'Asia' or Europe would be incorrect.

If most of Europe merges into a single nation, they would undoubtedly name themselves 'Europe' and there is nothing incorrect about that.

is the EU incorrectly named, even though it includes only a part of Europe?

Secondly, I do not believe any Pakistanis want to rename Pakistan as India here - just that the roots and the origin of the name referred to 'a large part of the lands comprising modern Pakistan'.

Sure, but that does not in any way make it exclusively refer to Pakistan.

To think that would be totally absurd.

 

[Vinod2070]

If a guy comes to your house and sees only the varandah and mistakes that for your house, that does not make it a reality.

The Greeks coming from the West would obviously first come in contact with the Western parts and only later with the real thing.

They sure missed the real thing for a long time it seems!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well the assumption is that the definition of the word expanded , and did not contract, so it is likely that Herodotus himself thought of India as the land eastwards of the Indus.

Obviously, I may be wrong, but common sense dictates that the definition would not contract.


If most of Europe merges into a single nation, they would undoubtedly name themselves 'Europe' and there is nothing incorrect about that.

is the EU incorrectly named, even though it includes only a part of Europe?

Sure, but that does not in any way make it exclusively refer to Pakistan.

To think that would be totally absurd.

The reason I beleive the definition incorrectly contracted to the West and expanded to the East is because the lands around the Indus, West and East, (until you get to the drier parts of Baluchistan and the Afghan border) would have been pretty much the same geographically, and also likely inhabited by the same people. So the definition does not make sense when taken literally, unless it marked some sort of boundary for a Kingdom.

The EU is an organization comprising various European nations who chose the name through consensus. Thats different from 'merging into a nation' - whether other nations that consider themsleves 'European', but are not part of Europe, would object to such usage remains to be seen.

However, I doubt that woudl be an issue, since European history is pretty well demarcated by nation. The lines are not so clear cut in South Asia, especially with the history and lingering doubts over Indian irredentism.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sir why don't you decide once and for all!

Are you India or are you "not India"?

The second one seems to be the predominant identity that Pakistan chose for itself.

Hence the quibbles with the usage of the word 'India' by the contemporary Republic of India. China is a part of Asia, now just becasue a nation names herself "Asia" does not make China a part of that nation. That is the confusion I refer to when references are made to 'Indian hsitory'.

Pakistan is a part of South Asia/Ancient India(region)/Indian Subcontinent - it isn't a part of the Republic of India/Bharat/Hindustan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If a guy comes to your house and sees only the varandah and mistakes that for your house, that does not make it a reality.

The Greeks coming from the West would obviously first come in contact with the Western parts and only later with the real thing.

They sure missed the real thing for a long time it seems!

Its just a name, based on a river encountered by Greeks, that they then progressively used to apply to more and more of the region as they discovered it. It does not mean that there was ever a 'house' to begin with, just lots of small houses that they discovered and kept including in the same 'neighborhood' and referring to by the same name.

 

[Vinod2070]

Hence the quibbles with teh usage of the word 'India' by the contemporary Republic of India. China is a part of Asia, now just becasue a nation names herself "Asia" does not make China a part of that nation. That is the confusion I refer to when references are made to 'Indian hsitory'.

Pakistan is a part of South Asia/Ancient India (region)/Subcontinent - it is nt a part of the Republic of India/Bharat/Hindustan.

100 % agreed. And there is no confusion about any of this. We are saying the same thing it seems.

We all share the same ancient history of the region and have a different history after 1947.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

100 % agreed. And there is no confusion about any of this. We are saying the same thing it seems.

We all share the same ancient history of the region and have a different history after 1947.

See the problems arise when the 'sharing of history' is juxtaposed with 'Modern India being a continuation of an 'ancient Indic civilization', then it starts to seem irredentist and expansionist - especially in the light of the Indian leadership's reluctant acceptance of Pakistan, and teh subsequent hostility we underwent.

In an atmosphere that was not so poisoned, I doubt we would have so many issues.

 

[Flintlock]

The reason I beleive the definition incorrectly contracted to the West and expanded to the East is because the lands around the Indus, West and East, (until you get to the drier parts of Baluchistan and the Afghan border) would have been pretty much the same geographically, and also likely inhabited by the same people. So the definition does not make sense when taken literally, unless it marked some sort of boundary for a Kingdom.

Sorry, but you cannot simply decide what is the "correct" definition and what is "incorrect".

I could claim that Herodotus definition is "incorrect" while Megasthenes one is "correct", and but that would not make any sense.

I cannot say why the later definitions did not include the regions west of the Indus, perhaps it was inhabited by different tribes.

The EU is an organization comprising various European nations who chose the name through consensus. Thats different from 'merging into a nation' - whether other nations that consider themsleves 'European', but are not part of Europe, would object to such usage remains to be seen.

Well the non-EU European countries did not have a say in the choosing of the name, so I don't see what the difference is between India and Europe in this context.

As far as I am concerned, the analogy fits perfectly.

However, I doubt that woudl be an issue, since European history is pretty well demarcated by nation. The lines are not so clear cut in South Asia, especially with the history and lingering doubts over Indian irredentism.

Not really - European history is insanely complicated - and there are thousands of unresolved disputes.
However, because of a more honest understanding of history (and less nationalistic interpretation and hyperbole), these disputes are not so important anymore.

Perhaps the dispute between Macedonia and Greece would be a useful example.