It's interesting the name India originated from Indus river which flows through Pakistan and the word Hindu (another geographical term) was named by Persians who could not pronounce the S of Sindhu which is what they referred to as the Indus river. The ancient Persian Cuneiform inscriptions and the Zend Avesta refer to the word "Hindu" as a geographic name rather than a religious name. Apparently the Persian King Darious 1when he extended his empire up to the borders of the Indian subcontinent in 517 BC, referred to people from the Indian subcontinent who worked in his army as "Hindus." The ancient Greeks and Armenians followed the same pronunciation, and thus the name become well known.
The ancient Greeks used to mispronounce the river Sindhu as Indos. When Alexander invaded India, the Macedonian army referred to the river as Indus and the land east of the river as India. The Greek writers who wrote about Alexander preferred to use the same name. The word India and Hindu was meant to refer to people living east of Indus. I would say India and Hindu/Hindustan are secular words.
The actual name of the religion which is "Hinduism" is actually sanatana dharma and followers of it are technically Dharmis. It's always interesting when I hear people talk of Indians and words Hindus as being foreign when actually it was a geographical term.
The name “India” was coined for Hindustan by the British/Europeans, who first sailed to America and named all the natives Indians as if they discovered it first so they give it a new name totally ignoring the fact that American Nations were already occupying the continent for centuries.
So all those who want to perpetuate the British Raj can call themselves “Indians”
I prefer the original name Sindhu!
and going back to the roots… the land around darya- i-Sindh to be called!
What do you think India-Pakistan would have been like today if we were still under rule by the Brits if they ruled us but due to human rights laws and all we were treated as equal citizens? Would we have become like UK and Europe? Would it have been like Pakistanis and Indians living in the UK and US?
You have to remember that at least in US / Canada, it is majorly the cream of the crop that is a success story. I remember that there was another thread by Ali Syed where sindh seems to have regressed because prosperous hindu sindhis left and were replaced by muslims that necessarily weren't sindhi. Sure, sindh might be good, at least for hindu parsi sindhis, but you have to remember that for a business friendly and growing gujarat, there is a also a much bigger and problematic UP, bihar and even bengal in the same india. I'd say that anti-partition folks are simply daydreaming if they think that India Pak would be another US or even UK for that matter if 1947 had not happened. India would need to be secular in 1947 but Congress wasn't even willing to share power in 1947, as after all Jinnah was a congress wala earlier in his life and was known as an ambassador of hindu muslim unity.
