Talk:Names of India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Name formation

This article doesn't really provide the formation/history of the word India itself. Odd.--iFaqeer 01:42, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Really?

Interestingly the Vedas did not assign any particular name for India...

Really? Then what was the name "Jambu-Dweep" supposed to mean?

WikiSceptic 16:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm somewhat confident (not fully confident though) that Jambudvipa was more than India. Perhaps all of Asia, or the whole of the Old World. Imc 12:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of the names of India

That's what this article is. The etymology of India would be restricted to the one name, India, not Bharata; bit pedantic perhaps, but then, this is an encyclopaedia, so we should be pedantic. So I suggest a rename. Imc 09:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspect information

The following sounds suspicious to me: "King Bharata himself may have been named after the Goddess Bharati, worshipped nowadays as Bharat Mata (mother India). There may be evidence to suggest that the Indo-European tribe that collectively worshipped 'Bharati' may have reached the farthest shores of Europe, settled on the land which they named after the Goddess: Bharatania (Britannia). Images of the Goddess describe her as bearing a trident and accompanied by a lion."

Mainly because AFAIK the figure of britannia is not ancient, having been invented at around the time when scotland, england wales were joined together- that is to say the early modern period. Also generally the idea of an indo-european people who once ruled all europe sounds suspiciously like the bogus "Aryan" theory of the Nazis.

[edit] Change on the Bharatvarsha Map

Bharatvarsha is actually supposed to include several parts of Tibet, including the holy Kailash Mt. Also the Brahmapurta rivers are said to be in Bharata's Empire, so I updated the previous map. It's mof the same size and made by me.

[edit] Indus River?

Does anybody else find it interesting (and ironic) that the word "India" comes from the Indus River, not even part of modern India, but Pakistan? I think this should be featured in the "Did you know?" section.128.100.36.250 15:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Indus Flows through India before it enters Pakistan. One look at the map will confirm this. Anon, 16, March, 2006

[edit] Recent edits and additions of names

The article is on the etymology of the names of India. The alteration at [1] shows that etymological information is being removed, in favour of adding names and giving reasons for their being names of India. Given the title, it makes no sense for this article to be a list of names. If someone wishes to make a list of names, then that is a legitimate subject for another article. Such an article could then include such minor variations of the better known forms as the Turkish 'Hindistan' or the French 'Inde'.

Other points;

'Sanatan society', 'members of the Arya Dharma', are names and phrases that are understood or even known in common English. They should not be used here.
The chronological order of the content of Hind and Hindustan section was reverted to a random order. As an etymological account, a chronological order makes more sense. Reverted back to chronological order.
For the quotation from the Baarhaspatyua Samhita and whether it is reasonable to use it as a source, see discussion recently in Talk: Hindu, on 22 to 25 February under two headings. It contributes nothing of etymological interest. Removed.
Ilavarta – this is a part of Jambudvipa (ref. Mahabharata, Sabha Parva). No evidence that this is India. Removed.
Aryadesh is plainly not a name of India, but a part of it only. Jambudvipa is greater than all of India. The etymology of these names is not mentioned. Hence both removed. There is speculation under headings of Ilavarta and Jambudvipa that has no place anywhere in an encyclopaedia.
List of names; none of these were of all India, and hence belong under state or other names. Removed.

Imc 12:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Among the other changes introduced in recent days among the recent reverts were an image of 'Aum' in Indian languages, and a map of sacred Hindu sites within modern India and Nepal only. (Image:102_0449.JPG and Image:Punyabhumi.jpg) . Again, quite irrelevant to the topic and heading, so also removed. Imc 22:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I have protect this page to prevent an edit war and allow the two camps to sort out the issue on this page. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody change the wikilink Indo-Aryan in the Bharat section to bypass the disambiguation page and point directly to Indo-Aryans? --Sapphic 20:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that the page is unprotected, I've done it. Ntsimp 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative explanation of the origin of the word "Hindu"

The derivation of the word "Hindu" from the Persian pronunciation of Sind may now be in doubt.

Please have a look at this paper: http://sarasvati95.googlepages.com/antiquityhindu.pdf

In this scholarly and meticulously researched essay, Dr Pahoja has refuted claims that the word “Hindu” is a medieval construct. He cites historical evidence from a rich variety of sources to conclude that the word “Hindu” (like “Sindhu”) has been in use since the Vedic age and although it is a modified form of “Sindhu”, the origin lies in the Saurashtran practice of pronouncing ‘H’ in place of ‘S’ rather than being a corruption of “Sindhu” in Persian.

Jaidharma 13:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Jaidharma

I am new to wikipedia so apologies in advance if I have violated any guidelines. thanks.

You have made no other contributions to Wikipedia that I can see so it does not look like you have violated any guidelines.

As for the article at [2], it's not a claim that I can take too seriously. Some of it shows a poor grasp of language change, such as the claim that if the Sind/Hind transformation had taken place in Persian, then a corresponding change must have also taken place in the name Persia itself, changing it to Perhia! Much of the article seems to revolve around the point that the term Hind / Hindu has been established for thousands of years. The author seems to assume that any transformation of Sindhu --> Hindu in Persian was recent. This is not so, it was already established in Avestan (see similar cognates, such as Ahura / Asura). He makes a claim that Ashoka's inscriptions used the term Hind (which he then reproduces in Devanagari script, which did not exist at the time). That the term was used in Ashoka's empire would not be that surprising. The term had already been established in Persia at that time. By the time of Ashoka, Achemenid Persians (and later Greeks through Persia) had already made several inroads into the subcontinent, and it is to be expected that the name would be known there. It probably was used even then in those places where the language and culture were based on Persian or Greek culture. This includes Gandhara, and may have also included some of the Indus Valley. Imc 15:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You have violated no guidelines, Jaidharma, it is always a good idea to raise a point on talk first. However, the "article" linked is pure nonsense cobbled together by a confused ideologist (you only need to read the first line in order to see what this is about). I invite you to review WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. These guidelines basically say that such stuff can be safely ignored. dab (𒁳) 10:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am no linguist, I have to establish this first because I am making no definate claimes here. However, I'd like to give my opinion if you don't mind. The cited article definitly has mistakes. It dates an Arabic poem bake to the 1700s BC, which contradicts most (if not all) scholars (including Arabs, by the way) that say that the Arabic languag did not exist that far back (well, except some ideologists who don't have any concrete evidence).

But, I must say that I find it rather strange that the word Hind originated from Sind. Both words exist in Arabic refering to the region of India and Pakistan respectively since at least the fifth century AD (I read a pome of that era that mentioned them). While the artilce whose discussion page is this one states that the word Hind existed in Arabic and Persian around the 11th century (6 centuries later). I believe that the eytmology given is incorrect and does not make sense. In my humble opinion, someone must look further into this issue and dig up some references with more viability. --Maha Odeh (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Malayalam version

Why is the Malayalam version just a transliteration of "Republic of India" (with "India" as the shortened version)? This English-derived term is sometimes used ("India" is almost always used in the colloquial speech of the younger generation) , but I doubt that it is the official name. To be consistent with the other languages, it would probably be better to use ഭാരത ഗണരാജ്യം (Bhārata gaṇarājyam) with ഭാരതം (Bhāratam) being the short form. --Kannan91 (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge "Official names of India" here

As this includes the official list, what is the need for a separate article? And any "Names of India" article should surely encompass those official names, so removing that list from here would castrate this article. --Ant (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subsets, but separate articles required

The article Official names of India can be a part of the article Names of India, though it needs a separate article owing to its official staus, whereas the Names of India is more from a historical perspective. I have given a link to the main article of Official names of India in Names of India.

Similarily, Hindustan, though one of the important names of India, needs a separate article linked to Names of India, as it has a great scope of expansion, v. its usage in the changing cultural landscape of 19th and 20th century Indian subcontinent. Link duely provided in the Names of India article. (Ekabhishek (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC))