Home
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Mixx
Sphinn
Twitter
SphereIt
Propeller
Gmarks
Newsvine
Yahoo! My Web
Live Journal
Blinklist
E-mailThe first Article of the Constitution of India states that “India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states.” Thus, India and Bharat are equally official names for the Republic of India. Hindustan is yet a third name mostly used by Muslims in the historical context of the period relating to Mughal and British rule. Thus India has three names Bharat, Hindustan and India.
It is the third name India by which the nation is most widely known which excites my curiosity .I discovered that the Indian’s have made a monumental error in retaining this name as the official post independence name for their motherland.
The name India is derived from the name of the Sindhu (Indus River) and has been in use in Greek since Herodotus times- 4 century BC.It denotes the region along the Indus (Ἰνδός) river- listed as a territory conquered by Darius I in the Persepolis terrace inscription, 4th century BC). Geographically The Indus River separates the Indian sub-continental plate from the land mass to the west of the river.
In fact the civilization which sprung up along the Indus is one of the oldest known civilizations, spanning the period from 7000 BCE to about 3200BCE.We do not know what these people called themselves. But it appears that another ancient people The Sumerians knew them as the Meluhha and Mekan.
During the period of British rule extensive excavations unearthed numerous
Sites of a remarkably organized and efficient people who traded with surrounding areas – ultimately with even as far as Hawaii! Starting with cultivating of crops, they developed their own seals, script, arts, tools–going on to build mighty cities. The archeologists named these people as the Indus valley civilization.
If we plonk the uncovered archeological sites of this civilization on a modern map, we find the sites confined exclusively along the Indus valley region with off shoots into what is now Baluchistan, Kashmir and NWFP! Thus Long before the Crescent and Star flew atop Islamabad, in fact even long before Chandra Gupta Vikramadatya ruled India, or even any known civilization developed in what is now wrongly called India; the people of Punjab, Singh, Sarah, Baluchistan and Kashmir were tied together as the people of The Indus Valley civilization.
The oldest arable land dating back 7000 years ago, the first implements, the first seals, the first script, the first cities –all have been discovered amongst these people of the Indus. Bainerjee and Sir Edmund Hill, the two founding archeologists clearly state in their writings, that the Indus valley civilization people did not have any organized religion. No “Temples” have been discovered either in Moenjadaro, Harappa or Taxila their major cities. But archaeologists have unearthed impressive public and private buildings that are evidence of a complex society based on a highly organized agriculture supplemented by active commerce. The arts flourished, and examples in copper, bronze, and pottery have been uncovered. Also found were examples of a pictograph script that long baffled archaeologists but was finally deciphered in 1969.
It is this Indus valley civilization(the Indians) which aided the emergence of the people of Bharati or Hindi people in the form of the Gangetic valley civilization in the sub-continent which came hundreds of years later. The fate of the Indus valley civilization remains a mystery, but it is believed that it fell victim to invading Aryans.
As the map above shows even with the arrival of the British in the Gangetic subcontinent the people of The Indus Valley(i.e.The Indians) were never a part of British rule till as late as 1850. Thus-except for a short period of about 100 years- historically as well as geographically the people of the Indus valley9The Indians) have always been distinct from the people of the Gangetic plains(The Hindis or Bharatis).
After the British left the two again separated . The people of the Indus valley (or Indians) setting up the state of Pakistan and the people of the Gangetic plains or Hindis set up Bharat. Calling this later state India is therefore a serious misnomer as well as a case of claiming of a false heritage along with a disowning of their real one by the people of Bharat or Hind.
RSS 
great research work!
In fact the word ’Hindu’ to is an offshoot of the word ’Indu’ by which the river Indus was known to the Greeks (which Rizvi you have cited in your article).
What appears as ”A Himalayan Blunder — Misnaming of India” is not so.
Hindu texts even refer to it as ’Jambu Dvapey’.
What was a land apparently named after river,a purely geographical indicator, in its long turbulent history acquired religious identities, with which it is still struggling.
How ever I do feel that in a scholarly discussion there should be no place for tongue in cheek comments of the type used in the opening sentences of your comments.
That said let us get on to the meat of the subject. You said: “The name India, covered the whole sub-continent beyond the Indus river till……… (Rest of comment deleted as being unnecessary for an objective and scholarly discussion of the issue…….)”.
But where in my article have I said it did not? I have explicitly mentioned that it was first applied to the whole subcontinent by the British and it is surprising that Hindis decided to retain it after Independence? So the more important point is since when has the word Indians been applied to Al-Hind or Hindis as these people were known before the British started using it for them. Also more important who were known as the Indian people or people of The Indos before the British applied it to the others. Let us see the etymology of the word (all the data given below in quotation marks is direct quote from the online Encyclopedia Wikipedia)
”The Indus River {Hindi and Sanskrit: Sindhu; Urdu: Sindh; Sindhi: Sindhu; Punjabi (Shahmukhi: Gurmukhi:) Sindhu; Greek: Ινδός Indos} is the longest river in Pakistan and the third largest river, in terms of annual flow in the Indian subcontinent. Sindhu, is also the name of the Indus in the Rigveda. Sindhu is attested 176 times in the Rigveda, notably in the later hymns, the meaning of the word is narrowed to refer to the Indus river in particular, for example in the list of rivers of the Nadistuti sukta. This resulted in the anomaly of a river with masculine gender: all other Rigvedic rivers are female, not just grammatically, being imagined as goddesses and compared to cows and mares yielding milk and butter”.
”It is often considered the life-line of Pakistan. The Europeans used the name ”India” for the entire subcontinent based on the appellation of this river. The word ”India” is a reference to the Indus River. In ancient times, it referred to the region of modern-day Pakistan along the Indus river which traded extensively with the ancient world. It was only after the arrival of the British in the 16th century that name began to be applied to the entire region”.
So Indians or Indos are definitely people of The Indus Valley Civilisation.Now let us get to the word Hindu .You said : “In fact the word ’Hindu’ is an offshoot of the word ’Indu’ by which the river Indus was known to the Greeks.” Mixing Indu with Hindu just because it sounds the same may be a convenient way to conceal the blunder,but it just will not do. See below the reasons why.Again All words in quotes are from online Encyclopedia Wikipedia and not mine :
”When and how the word ’Hindu” was coined is not precisely established. It is absent in early sacred literature of Indian origin. ……..Regular usage of the word is encountered in the accounts of foreign invaders of the medieval period, to describe collectively the followers of Indian religions”.
”Eventually “Hindu” became equivalent to anybody of “Indian” origin who was not otherwise Sikh, Jain, or belonged to a religion of Abrahamic denomination, thereby encompassing a wide range of religious beliefs and practices .British Raj, with the help of the academia, defined Hindus precisely for demographic and legal purposes”.
”Due to the wide diversity in the beliefs, practices and traditions encompassed by Hinduism, there is no universally accepted definition on what a Hindu is, or even agreement on whether Hinduism represents a religious, cultural or socio-political entity. In 1995, Chief Justice P. B. Gajendragadkar was quoted in an Indian Supreme Court ruling:[5]
”When we think of the Hindu religion, unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one god; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion of creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.”
”A commonly held view, though, is that while Hinduism contains both ”uniting and dispersing tendencies”, it has a common central thread of philosophical concepts (including dharma, moksha and samsara), practices (puja, bhakti etc) and cultural traditions. These common elements originating (or being codified within) the Vedic, Upanishad and Puranic scriptures and epics”.
Finally if you are trying to say that the people of the Indus Valley Civilization were Hindus, the facts clearly contradict the claim. As I said in my article no temples have been found in any of their over 1200 cities and towns. And I forgot to mention, two other important points distinguishing these Indians from the Hindus. Firstly no evidence has been found of any practices originating from the sacred Hindu codices the Vedic, Upanishad and Puranic scriptures and epics. Secondly these people are known to have buried their dead, rather then cremating them.
You conclude by saying: What was a land apparently named after river, a purely geographical indicator, in its long turbulent history acquired religious identities, with which it is still struggling.Sorry to note this too is a comment which has no connection with the issue being discussed in my article. But which I may address in a future article.
Best Regards and Blessings
You seem to have missed the point I made in the conclusion of my comment, which you find a disconnect.
The land that apparently acquired its name because of a river, witnessed numerous migrations that often resulted in violent battles.
Historians bear out this fact.
In this I count displacing or swamping the older Indus Valley Civilization.
What religion these people professed - can’t say; but since they did bury their dead, in the belief that they will come alive someday, does bear proof that some religion did exist in this society too.
They were not Hindus in the religious connotation the word has come to be associated with over the centuries - but geographical location of these cities does certify that they were the inhabitants of Indos or Sindhu, hence they remain Hindus or residents of Indus.
Amalgamation of different races, who carried their religious identities along with them - be it Aryans, Huns, Kushans, Afghans, Mongols, Mughals or even the British, have all ended up in this cultural melting pot.
Religions in protest of older religions were born, some like Jainism survived some like Buddhism mainly went abroad and some like the old Vedic beliefs were simply superceded by newer interpretations.
Mohammad Bin Qasim brought the banner of Islam much before a Mahmud of Ghazni or a Mohammad Ghori came visiting.
What you seem to have taken offense to is my reference to is - ”a land ’of’ and ’for’ the pure (Pak).”
That was never the intention. But considering it with all seriousness is.
You title says ’A Himalayan Blunder — Misnaming of India’
What blunder you will term naming of Pakistan.
Underneath our skin, outside all our religious and national identities, we are simply humans.
Its not just Pakistan that is struggling to come to terms with its religious identity, religion stares in India’s face too.
This deeply divisive force is hindering harmony that is needed if we are to develop and provide better living conditions to the residents of Indos or Sindhu, be it India or Pakistan.
An interesting article. But, also read my article The naming of “India” and “Pakistan” which presents another facet of the story of naming of these two countries.
I have read it,and given my comments/observations for you to think about.Enjoyed your blog.
I would appreciate any references to the effect.To my mind no Indus valley scholar has established this.
Thanks for the detailed clarification.I have already explained in my last reply why Hindis can’t be called Sindhus or Indous ,and how it was the British who first applied the name Hindus to the varied and divergent beliefs based on Vedic, Upanishad and Puranic scriptures and epics”- and the word Indians to the many and varied races following these beliefs- they found all over the country.The term Hindu is nowhere to be found in the early Sanskrit scriptures.
Even you yourself write that Indous or Sindhu refers to the inhabitants of the Indus.If so just think for a moment how can inhabitants of Madras,or Calicut or Bengal etc call themselves Sindhu or Indos ?
As for your contention the land which apparently acquired its name because of a river, witnessed numerous migrations that often resulted in violent battles;I most respectively state again it has no connect with the subject under discussion.
Historians have found no evidence of major battles in the period ,or even of instruments of war of the type which could be said to have destroyed a civilization spread over an area larger then that of Egypt.The theory of Aryan invasion as a cause for their demise has thus been ruled out.
There is no evidence of a mass migration of these people- or of their later descendants -to any other regions.
Theories of they being proto-Dravadians have also been disproved.
In fact recent advances in genetic sciences have amply clarified the matter.Studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome, microsatellite DNA,and mitochondrial DNA in India have cast overwhelmingly strong doubt for a biological Dravidian ”race” distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent. The only distinct ethnic groups present in South Asia according to genetic analysis are the Balochi, Brahui, Burusho, Hazara, Kalash, Pathan and Sindhi peoples, the vast majority of whom are found in Pakistan -these are descendents of the original inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilisation i.e. The Indous,or Sindhus.
The vast majority of the population of what is now known as India are not Indians or Indous at all.They are said to comprise of seven races who migrated and settled in the area over a period of time.These are:
Negritos: These broad headed people came from Africa were the earliest to inhabit Bharat. They can still be found in the Andamans, and among hill tribes in South India like the Irulas, Kodars, Paniyans and Kurumbas.
Pro-Australoids or Austrics: This group was the next to come to Bharat after the Negritos. People with wavy hair, spread over the whole of India, Burma and the islands of South East Asia. They are said to ”form the bedrock of the stock”.
Mongoloids: These tribal groups are located in Assam, Nagaland and Meghalya and also in Ladakh and Sikkim. Generally, they are people of yellowish complexion, oblique eyes, high cheekbones, sparse hair and medium height.
Mediterranean or Dravidian: This group appear to be people of the same stock as the peoples of Asia Minor and Crete and the pre-Hellenic Aegeans of Greece.
Nordics or Indo-Aryans: Nordic Aryans were a branch of Indo-Iranians, who had originally left their homes in Central Asia, some 5000 years ago, and had settled in Mesopotamia for some centuries. They came to India between 2000 and 1500 B.C. Their first home in India was western and northern Punjab.
Western Brachycephals. These include the Alpinoids, Dinaries and Armenois. The Coorgis and Parsis also fall into this category.
As for your final question: What blunder you will term the naming of Pakistan?
No blunder at all.You see we had a right to the name Indians.History
is a proof that even our poet philospher and our great Quaid both wanted a united Pakistan so that we could remain Indians.Remember his anthem: Sare Jahan Sae Accha Ye Industan Hamara
But since your leaders would not accept their demands for constitutional safeguards -and also laid prior claim to the name Indians... What choice did they leave us?Pakistan of course.
In the final analysis my blog was about facing reality.No amount of semantics can wish our issues away or bring peace.We have to learn to live together by liking and respecting each other for what we are . You are pre-dominantly Bharatis or the people of the MahaBharata - and we are Muslims or the people of The Quran.
Only to emphasise this -the title you mention.Believe me no other reason.
Regards and Blessings
I just wish to add that Lahore was named on Lav, the son of Lord Ram, the king of Ayodhya, who was alive 17 Lakh years back according to Hindu mythology.
Hindostan and India are names. with recent origin. Ancient name is Bharat, Bharatvarsh, Aryavrat, Jambudwip, etc.
Ancient scriptures do not refer to Hindu word.
Your craving to search for your ancient roots prior to advent of Islam, so called Aryan invasion or Dravidian imposition or before so called stone age; is fascinating.
Thanks for the comment -and the information about Lahore.One source given for the name of the city is indeed Lav, the son of Lord Ram, the king of Ayodhya.
I am also pleased to note that your comment,” Hindostan and India are names. with recent origin. Ancient name is Bharat, Bharatvarsh, Aryavrat, Jambudwip, etc. Ancient scriptures do not refer to Hindu word”; agrees with one of the main themes of my article.
Thanks and Regards
