There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!
order now
It was many centuries later that the term “Hind/India” was used bysome foreigners to further encompass much of Southern Asia, againas a geographic term having no religious or national meaning. Thebroadening of this term’s usage was no different than how the word”Farangi” (derived from the word “Franks/France”) became the termfor all Europeans used by Middle Easterners (and South Asians)during the Middle Ages due to French interaction (Crusaders) withthem. Indus Valley is located at the entering point (from west)into South Asia, thus its geographic term was later used by a fewforeign visitors and invaders for the whole region. However, othersused ‘Hind’ for present day north India and ‘Sindh’ for present dayPakistan.
The bottomline is that the term/word “Hind/Hindu/India” was foreign(for their own references), and had no religious or nationalmeaning. It was no different than how the words “Africa” and”America” are used — i.e. foreign geographic terms encompassingmany different peoples and religions.
Not a single South Asian text/inscription (Vedic, Buddhist,Brahmanic, Dravidic, etc.) mentions any word”Hindu/Hinduism/India”. It was only with the arrival of Musliminvaders (Ghorids — 12th century AD) that the foreign term”Hindu/Hindustan” was imposed in South Asia to denote its ruledsubjects and lands. It was also starting from this period that theword “Hindu” started to gain a religious color. It was easy for thenew invaders to differentiate their religion from the countlesslocal ones with just a single word. Later on, with the arrival ofthe British, their introduced term “Hinduism” became widely in use.
The foreign word “Hinduism” simply became the term for manydifferent local religions of South Asia. Hinduism is a meaninglessterm and concept in the sense that it can include any thing ornothing. Contradictory or opposing aspects are quite common in it,and as quoted by many scholars it cannot be truly defined. Hinduismas a “civilization of Hindus” is another hollow definition in thesame way “Western civilization” can include many differentreligions, peoples, nations, regions, etc. To say “Hinduism” hasbeen evolving since ancient times is a farce as the term/worditself has recent origins, and humans and their ideas/beliefs havebeen evolving since time-immemorial all over the world. Forexample, if Christianity has some influences from Roman Paganism itdoes not mean that Christianity evolved from Roman Paganism becausethe word/term “Christianity” was invented later on andChristianity’s beliefs/practices are by large distinct.
As far as present-day India is concerned, the fact is it wascreated one day after Pakistan’s creation! Pakistan was created bythe Pakistanis themselves. On the other hand, the Britishcolonialists conquered the various countries/peoples/kingdoms ofSouth Asia and for the ease of administration consolidated theminto a single unit called “India”. No country with such name or/andsize existed prior to its British creation. With the departure ofBritish, their colonies were divided with present day India being adirect descendent of that British creation.
In the words of Winston Churchill, “India is no more a country thanthe Equator”. It is no wonder there are many separatist movementsin India, having many distinct nations, races, languages, cultures,religions, histories, etc… A Tamil is racially as different froma Kashmiri as is an Ethiopian from an Italian. A Naga is culturallyas different from an Bihari as is a Chinese from a Argentinian. AGujarati is linguistically as different from an Andhra (Telugu) asis a German from an Arab. Such extreme differences are common placeamong the so called Indians with barely any unifying factors. Onthe other hand, Pakistanis have all the commonality beinglinguistically Indo-Iranian, racially mostly Caucasoid,geographically based around Indus Valley, sharing a commonhistory/culture, and adhering to the faith of Islam.
Pakistan might be a few decades old, but the land and its peoplehave a history dating back to thousands of years. Indus ValleyCivilization is their heritage, the continuity is obvious in manyaspects of their culture and race, absorbing and/or adopting the
many different waves of migrants/invaders throughout thecenturies.Pakistanis are a blend of their heritage of Harappans,Rig Vedic Aryans, Persians, Greeks, Scythians, Parthians, Kushans,Hephthalites, Arabs,Turks, and Moguls. Pakistan—the land andpeople of Indus directly inherits one of the greatest ancientcivilizations of the world, just the same way present-day Iraq,Greece, and Egypt (all three countries also recently created)inherits their own great ancient civilizations.
It is irrelevant that the descendents of Harappans are now mostlyMuslims! Similarly, descendents of ancient Mesopotamians andEgyptians are also now mostly Muslims, and descendents of ancientsGreeks and Romans are now mostly Christians! And also, just becausethe once Christian Syrians are now mostly Muslims, it does not meanthat Nigerian Christians can claim the heritage of Syria today!Just because China was mostly Buddhist it does not mean thatChinese civilization is part of Indian heritage. Same logic appliesbetween Pakistan’s Buddhist past and today’s Hindu India. Or justbecause once Syria and Spain were briefly united under the ancientRomans and Arabs it does not mean Syria’s heritage belongs toSpain. Same logic applies between Pakistan and India under the ruleof British, Turko-Afghan Muslims, etc. And just because today acountry is named “South Africa” it does not mean it can claim theheritage of all southern Africa. Same logic applies betweenPakistan and India’s monopoly over the British geographic/colonialterm/word “India”.
The region of Pakistan was never part of present day region ofIndia except for 100 years under the Mauryans, 522 years under theMuslims, and 100 years under the British. These are historicalfacts that no one can deny! Most Indians have no right to claim theheritage of Pakistan (Indus Valley Civilization, Rig Vedic Aryans,Gandharan Civilization, etc.) because the region was rarely part ofIndia, with its mostly distinct religion, culture, language, andrace since ancient times! Why should a Tamil (Indian) claim theheritage of a Punjabi (Pakistani)? Or why should a Vishnuvite ofBengal (Indian) claim the heritage of Kalasha’s Kafirs of KPK(Pakistanis) or Buddhist ancestors of Sindhi Muslims (Pakistanis)?And let’s say, even if the ancestor of a Pakistani was Shaivite,that does not mean that Shaivites of Indonesia can claim theheritage of Pakistan. Or, if Pakistan region/people were oncemostly Buddhist, it does not mean that Buddhist Japanese are thesame people as the Pakistanis.
