Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

When we say "India" in an historical context, realize that we're not talking about the place we know today. S. Asian history contains many varying political entities and cultures each covering varying sub-regions of the region covered today by India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. For much of of the time (I don't remember enough to say how long off the top of my head), the main divide has been between (northern India + Pakistan) and (southern (Tamil?) India), for geographical reasons. Heck, the Indus river, after which India is named, is now in Pakistan. The current countries and their borders date only to 1971, and are unresolved in some places.

(The vagueries of history and its crazy etymologies are hardly limited to the subcontinent: Look at the "West Indies" and Native American "Indians" as easy examples. And every piece of real estate in the world has been controlled by more than one political entity, and periodically one of the former owners claims someone else's land on some historical basis.)

For those interested in more, it's hard to find a good one-volume scholarly history of the region in English, at least last I looked. Here's the best I found, IMHO:

India: A History by John Keay

https://www.harpercollins.com/9780007382392/india-a-history

EDIT: a few enhancements



But still there is nothing wrong with the word "India" in this context. Brahmagupta was a worshipper of Shiva who lived in Rajasthan. He fits in perfectly well with Indianness both modern and ancient.

Now it is interesting that the words "India" and "Hindu" are western (mostly Iranian) impositions. Perhaps Brahmagupta would have found the word "Bharat" less alien. But since the topic of the article is about how a particular Indian idea was spread and developed further west, the name is perfectly appropriate.

P.S. I also like John Keay's book.


> Brahmagupta was a worshipper of Shiva who lived in Rajasthan. He fits in perfectly well with Indianness both modern and ancient.

What does it matter who they worshiped, unless we want to buy into Hindu nationalism? What about all the vast number of other religions in modern India? What about the secular foundation of modern India?


> S. Asian history contains many varying political entities and cultures each covering varying sub-regions of the region covered today by India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh

Sure. However, the India that is being referred to in the post is the period of Hindu renaissance during which a vast body of philosophical, secular, and scientific literature (including the developments referred to in the article) was produced. That cultural context is carried forward to a large extent in what is India today. Neither of the other countries mentioned carry this context today.

Referring to Indian history and Indian civilization as S.Asian history/civilization is like referring to the Egyptian civilization as the North-east African Civilization, because the Kingdom of Kush also extended into Sudan.


> For this word "Indian" has been abused as no other word in the language; almost every time it is used it has to be qualified. There was a time in Europe when everything Oriental or everything a little unusual was judged to come from Turkey or India. So Indian ink is really Chinese ink and India paper first came from China. When in 1492 Columbus landed on the island of Guanahani he thought he had got to Cathay. He ought therefore to have called the people Chinese. But East was East. He called them Indians, and Indians they remained, walking Indian file through the Indian corn. And so, too, that American bird which to English-speaking people is the turkey is to the French le dindon, the bird of India.

Source: Sir V.S. Naipaul on East Indians, 1965 http://faroutliers.blogspot.com/2004/10/naipaul-on-east-indi...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: