Indian/Hindu Identity

[acharya]

http://www.despardes.com/articles/feb06/20...ublic-india.asp

Feb. 12, 2006 Des Pardes

`Islamic Republic of India´ By Aftab Alam

All the narcissism the Bharat has been bragging thereon has mostly been Indian Muslims heritage. Right from their legendary drummer, namely, Allah Rakha Khan to the architect of her missile program, Abdul Kalam Khan, including the overwhelming number of the most celebrated Poets, Writers, Historians, Geographers, Architectures, sport stars, film Stars, Musicians, Singers have been Muslim. Similarly all their world fame fascinating architectural monuments have been brought about by Indian Muslims. So much so that Hindus do not have the name for their own country - they have swindled us of our name "India" - which had been ours exclusively.

Indian Muslims on either side of the border have never been 'Pakistanis' and Hindus on either side of the border have never been 'Indians' - We have been 'Indian Muslims' throughout and they have been 'Bharati Hindus' throughout.
Similarly Indian Muslims have never ever named their homeland as Pakistan during their 1000-year rule - and 'Bharati Hindus' have never ever named their homeland as India, before the Muslims rule.

During the entire Muslims Era, we the Indian Muslims had always named our country as 'Hindustan' or 'Hind' as a nickname, in the local languages and 'India' in the western languages, before the great divide. Similarly Bharati-Hindus have always named their country as Bharat even after the partition, in Hindi language - and still today their official name in their constitution is Bharat. Bharat has never ever been 'India' - and 'India' has never ever been 'Bharat' before the partition.

The name 'India' therefore has nothing to do with 'Bharat,' 'Hinduism' or 'Hindus.' Bharati-Hindus have, like so many other symbols of our highly prestigious heritage and of our great pride, plagiarized, stealthily and slyly - and have been committing the most serious and grievous misnomer in regard of her name. 'Bharati Hindus' always keep their real face, trick and task cloaked, for their 'realities' look much ominous and injurious. So simply for this reasons they have displayed, our owned name, 'India' - and have sent their real name, 'Bharat' in the background, for they know that they can neither throw away their real name 'Bharat' nor they can escape there from so openly - hence by applying their traditional duplicity, they resorted to display the stolen name 'India' on the forefront and kept their real name 'Bharat' dormant, hidden and behind. Their real name has been Bharat throughout - even in the period far before than Ashoka the Great, which falls far before the Christ - while a well known Rajah namely, Rajah Bharata (or Rajah Bherath), according to "Puranas" had united some seven regions (or continents) in the north of the now Bharat and was reigning thereupon with great pomp and show. The name of that very regions (or continents), much less than the now Bharat (being somewhat peninsular) was 'Jambu Dvipa' - and hence after the death of the aforementioned Rajah Bharata (or Rajah Bharat), the Hindus used to call the land as 'Bharth Varsh' or Bharatavarsha (i.e. land of the Bharata). In this way the present name of 'Bharat' is the corruption of 'Bharata' (or Bherath).

I quote the exact words of the famous researcher, Sri Swami Sivananda from his book 'All about Hinduism' as below:

"The classical name for India which is used in Sanskrit literature is Bharata -Varsha or Bharata-Khanda, after the name of Bharata who ruled over a large extent of territory in days of yore. Manus name for the whole central region between the Himalayas and the Vindhya mountains is Aryavarta, Abode of the Aryans. Another name for the whole of India is Jambu-Dvipa. The Greeks gave the name Indu to the whole of this country. It was on account of this India became popular as the name of this country throughout Europe".

Renowned Professor C.R. Mishra notes in his valuable research work; 'Comprehensive History and Culture of Orissa' that Bharata did not originally denote India: "Bharatavarsha, here is used in a general sense denoting the regions of northern India " (P: 121). Elaborating this, he states that Bharata is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription and that it denoted only a part of North India - " In the epigraphic records of ancient India, the name `Bharatavarsha' is mentioned for the first time in the Hatigumpha inscription. But the name denoted North India at that time." (C.R. Mishra, `Kharavela and His Times', P: 130, N:
79).

And it is for this reason that their ultra religious and orthodox political pundits have named their most rabid pack as 'Bharatya Janata Party' (BJP) - the name of one of their religious book is also "Mahabharata" a long poem narrating the long fight between Kurus and Pandus, the two clans of Bharata family. And Hindus have also been calling their country as 'Bharat Mata' ( i.e. Mother Bharat). And now they have named their first ever so called spaceship as "Bharateena".

The Muslims have ruled exclusively, the whole Indian sub continent for round about 1000 years - if the name 'India' had any link with 'Hinduism' or Hindus, the Muslim powerful rulers, particularly the emperor Aurang Zeb Alamgeer would have consigned it to the dustbin of the history. They have grabbed our exclusively owned entity and property, the name 'India' - as they have grabbed Junagadh, Hyderabad Deccan, Siachin, Kargil and Kashmir.
How they did it, I borrow the quotation from the famous book, 'Freedom at Midnight' of the two renowned co-authors, Mr. Larry Collins & Mr. Dominique
Lapierre:

"AT THE OUTSET CONGRESS CLAIMED THE MOST PRECIOUS ASSET OF ALL, THE NAME "INDIA". REJECTING PROPOSAL TO NAME THEIR NEW DOMINION "HINDUSTAN", CONGRESS INSISTED THAT SINCE PAKISTAN WAS SECEDING, THE NAME INDIA AND INDIA'S IDENTITY IN GROUPS LIKE U.N. REMAIN THEIRS".

Now let us trace the base of the name 'India'. There is no denying the fact that the Greek word 'Indos' and the Latin word 'Indus' have been the ancient names of the mighty River, 'Sindh' (i.e. Indus) respectively - and the 'Sindhus' as well as India have been derived from the words 'Sindh' and 'Indus' respectively. One of the world's most ancient civilizations has been the 'Indus Valley Civilization' which came out more than 3230 BC - flourished and cherished in the Indus Valley - and when it perished, after the intrusion of the Aryan settlers - it was buried also in its nativity.
Thus the Indus Valley Civilization was also native of the Indus Valley. And ergo it also derived its name from the very river, 'Sindh, (i.e. Indus) - whose Greek and Latin names were/are pronounced as 'Indos' and 'Indus' - and so that ancient most civilization is remembered in the history, as "Indus Valley Civilization" - though it had the most 'contemporary' features.

Its main 'Mausoleums,' the largest sites with citadels, have also been discovered in Pakistan; 'Moenjo-Daro' on the lower Indus plain in the South at Larkana District - 'Chanhu Daro' in Nawabshah District, (in Sindh
Province) - 'Harappa' on the upper Indus plain in the north, at Sahiwal (in Punjab province) – 'Shahi Tump' in the valley of Kej (Mekran) in the Baloch territory and 'Judeiro Daro' in the Pathan region of Balochistan.

Now let us go back a little more in time. The intrusion of the Aryans started in waves after waves in about 3000 BC, and continued for about 1000 years - those Aryans were not a single tribe or race but they were comprised of an assortment of tribes from the Central Asia. So in first instance, those Aryans settled in the upper part of the mighty river; 'Sindh/Indus'
namely, 'Sindh Valley' or 'Indus Valley' - which were then known as 'Saptasindhva' or 'Sapta Sindhus' meaning, land of the seven rivers (i.e.
Sutlaj, Bias, Ravi, Chenab, Jehlum, Sindh and the now extinct river Saraswati).

Celebrated writer, Bode Roy Punjabi quoting the illustrious researcher, Dr.
Abinas Chandra Das writes as under, "The land in which the Vedic Aryans lived is called in Rigveda by the name of Saptasindhva or the land of seven rivers, which includes the Indus or Sindhu with its principal tributaries on the west and the saraswati on the east. The Ganges and the Yamunas have certainly been mentioned once or twice but they have not at all been included in the computation of the seven rivers that gave the country its name."

Bode Roy Punjabi writes in his book, 'Saptasindhva' as under:
"Thus the area now forming Kashmir, the Punjab, the NWFP, Eastern Balochistan and Sind (h) was the area of Aryan Settlement".

Distinguished scholar, A.L. Bhasham writes in his famous Book, 'The Wonder that was India' - "Of the two river systems that of the Indus, now mainly in Pakistan, had the earliest civilization and gave its name to India. The fertile plains of the Punjab watered by the five great tributaries of the Indus had a high culture over two thousand years before Christ, which spread down the lower course of the Indus as far as the sea."

Similar is the account of the eminent research scholar, Sri Swami Sivananda in his research work, 'Origin and Significance of the term Hindu' in the following words:

"That part of the great Aryan race which migrated from Central Asia, through the mountain passes into India, settled first in the districts near the river Sindhu, now called the Indus, on the other side of the river. The Persians pronounced the word Sindhu as Hindu, and named their Aryan brethren Hindus. Hindu is only a corrupt form of Sindhu".

So merely as a common noun from the word "Sapta Sindhus" and simply for the reason of their new common nativity and to denote those Aryan settlers as
whole: they were first called as 'Sindhus' and 'Sindhi' in some of the local and eastern languages. And exactly for the same reason and as a common noun from the word 'Indus' they were called as Indians in most of the western languages. Thus none of those Aryans was neither Hindu nor that was possible, for Hinduism was not yet handcrafted.

Similarly the heartland of the Indus Valley Civilization, making a part of Pakistan is called even today as Sindh (i.e. Sindh Province) and its natives as 'Sindhi' because of the river 'Sindh/Indus' - exactly as natives of Punjab (i.e. land of five rivers) are called Punjabis, as a common noun.

Now how the erstwhile common noun 'Sindhus' transmuted subsequently into the
'Hindus'- the proper noun - that implied subsequently, one pertained to Hinduism. Or to simplify this question a little more, how the then simple common noun 'Sindhus' from the word 'Sindh', corrupted into 'Hindus,' the complicated noun - which turned into as a certain creed specific.

In fact the word Hindu has no link whatsoever with the subsequently developed creed, 'Hinduism'. Because the emerge of the word 'Hindu' was far more ancient than the surge of the creed, 'Hinduism'. And as a matter of fact the word 'Hinduism' have been coined far more later (i.e. round about after 2000 years) for the creed of the 'caste-rule' (i.e. Vern Ashram) by the western orientalists - and thus the word 'Hindu' had not been derived from Hinduism, for that could have not been done.

The word Hindu is admittedly a corruption of 'Sindhu' - a native of 'Sindh - Valley' (i.e. Indus - Valley). And today also the local natives of Sindh, in Pakistan, are called Sindhi, as a common noun from the word Sindh; the local name of the river Indus. Actually when the closest neighbors Iranians invaded the India, in about first half of the first BC millennium, they pronounced the word 'Sapta Sindhus' as 'Haft Hindus', for in Persian language the word 'haft' also denotes seven - and as such the word 'Haft-Hindus' is the Persian corruption of 'Sapta Sindhus' the then name of the Sindh Valley or Indus Valley. In this way if the word 'Hindu' is admittedly the corruption of 'Sindhu' - then the word 'Hindi' is obviously the corruption of Sindhi.

And this is the reasons that all Arabs even today call, all the Indian Muslims, including the Pakistanis as 'Hindi' - whereas the believers of caste rule specifically as Hindus - exactly and similarly the whole world call all the natives of India as Indians but the believers of the caste rule (i.e. Hinduism) as Hindus. Even the Hindus do not and cannot dare to use the word Hindu for other than them. The meaning of 'Hindu' and 'Hindi'/'Indian'
are so distinct right from the birth of Vern Ashram that in Arabic language the words 'Hindu' or 'Hindukki' are used simply for the believer of Hinduism
- and its plural has been 'Hindoos' or 'Hanadic' - whereas the plural of the word Hindi (i.e. Indian) has also been clearly distinct as 'Hanud' - from the former plural.

Now let us go a little deeper. Actually after about 2000 years of the Aryans mega migration, round about in 1000 BC, with the passage of time, some of the Aryan Settlers, like other ancient idol worshipers developed a 'sculpture based culture' and as such some of them first attracted to, then converted to and finally adopted that culture as a creed. So those were the circumstances, in about 1000 BC, when the metamorphosis of the 'sculpture based culture' into the Vern Ashram (i.e. Caste Rule) was underway - and the newly debuted 'sculpture based creed' thus started rising up and swelling up in the shape of Vern Ashram. But as yet, no one had ever called that culture or creed as Hinduism - they used to use the word 'Vern Ashram' (i.e. caste
rule) and subsequently 'Sanatan Dharma' (i.e. the Eternal Way) for the newly emerged creed, as evident from their basic most, primitive most and the sacred most, four religious books, the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda and the Atharva-Veda of Hindus. And it is for the reason of this most primitiveness - that they are also known as childhood of Hinduism.

Thus with the passage of further time, when some more extraordinary distinction in regard of the ethnicity as well as in beliefs, inter-se the Aryan Settlers, developed and protruded, then the common nouns, the 'Aryans'
and the 'Sindhus' or 'Hindus' lost its original sense and were therefore no more meaningful or conclusive, for all the Aryan Settlers did not adopt Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) or the sculpture based culture.

Those Aryan Settlers who adopted the sculpture based culture, as his/her creed, were called the 'Hindus' specifically as a proper noun and the rest simply the 'Sindhi'/'Hindi' in the local as well as in the eastern languages and the 'Indians' in the western languages, as a common noun. So one can say that as the 'Hindus' word is the corrupted form of Sindhus - similarly the 'Hindus people' are the corrupted (viz converted) form of some Aryans, who adopted the Vern Ashram (i.e. caste rule) as their creed. Thereafter when the Aryans Settlers spread throughout the whole sub continent, the whole subcontinent was also emerged as 'Barsagheer-Hind' in the eastern languages and as 'Indian subcontinent' in the western languages - and its natives as Hindis/Indians respectively - irrespective of their different religions, creeds and ethnicities, for the words Hindi/Indian simply denoted the native of Hind/India - and had nothing to do with any religion - whereas to denote believers of the 'caste rule' or 'Vern Ashram' the specific word 'Hindus'
was/are used for them, in all the languages of the world.

Exactly as the word "Asians" implies natives of Asia, irrespective of the creed of the Asians. Even today all the natives of India are called Indians but the believers of Islam in Bharat are called the Indian Muslims, the believers of Christianity are called the Indian Christians, and the believers of Sikhism are called the Indian Sikhs and so forth: as I said earlier that Aryans were not a single tribe but were multitude of tribes and were of multi-ethnical origin - hence after the mass exodus when the difference in their credos developed with the passage of time - then the word Hindu turned as creed specific and the word Sindhi/Hindi or Indian kept its originality, as nativity specific.

Actually Hindus never had any specific name for their creed. Now we must ask the question, why the Hindus creed had been nameless right from the beginning? In fact firstly, in the beginning the Hindus creed did not come out as a regular religion - secondly, unlike all other man-made creeds, Hindus never had any founder persona, neither in the sky nor on earth, as a founder of their creed. Hence no one was there to be attributed to their creed. Conversely, the grand spiritual leaders; Gautama Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Lao zi (Lao Tzu) , Nataputta Mahavira, Joseph Smith, Guru Nanak Sahib, have been the Founder Personas of Buddhism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Jainism, Mormonism, Sikhism respectively.

Actually in the start the creed 'Vern Ashram' was simply a jumble of some rituals of the assorted peoples, in the shape of a culture. Subsequently and gradually it transformed into a larger blend of the available respective cultures, pertaining to the host of Aryan Settlers along with the host of the local Dravidians - which was emerged subsequently as Vedic Civilization, solely based on the Vern Ashram (i.e. the caste rule). And as such it was their native name Hindu, wherefrom the name of their creed was coined after about more than two millenniums of the surge of the creed.

A renowned Hindu scholar, Nirad C. Choudhry writes in his book, "The Continent of Circe":

"I am surprised to find how many people even among those who are well-educated think that we are Hindus because we have a religion called Hinduism and that word is comparable to 'Christian' or 'Muslim'. It had no such association for the Hindus or for their neighbors in former times. This crept in when Modern European Orientalists began to study the religions of India. They found that the Hindus had no other name for the whole complex of their religious feelings, beliefs and practices except the phrase 'Sanatan Dharma or the Eternal Way. They did not have even a word of their own for religion in European sense; and so the Orientalists coined the word Hinduism to describe that complex of religion. Actually we Hindus are not Hindus because we follow a religion called or understood as Hinduism; our religion has been given the very imprecise label 'Hinduism' because it is the jumble of the creeds and rites of a people known as Hindus after their country. On this analogy the Greek religion might be called Hellenism and Graecism".

Another renowned Hindu scholar, Pundit Shiv Kishan Kaul writes in his book, 'Wakes up Hindus':

"The word Hinduism derived from Hindu, a Corruption of Sindhu. The Punjab in Vedic times was called Sapta Sindhu (The land of seven rivers). This was pronounced by Iranians as, Haft Hindu and so the inhabitants of the Punjab came to be called Hindus by Muslims invaders."

To tell the truth, the Indus River is exclusively a 'Muslim River' (though I use this term as a phrase) -for, which has been as steadfast as a Muslim should have been. In spite of all the hurdles and the unjust divide of our owned India, this mighty, impressive and striking river after forming its identity as such has been flowing throughout in the now Muslim India (i.e.
the Pakistan) - and by hinting towards the destiny it ends its journey at the Arabian Sea, in the Ocean - the Ocean which itself is not only being contributed by the former with fresh water but has also been contributed with an identity and name (i.e. the Indian Ocean) by this splendid and refined river.

The phrase I have used for the Indus River can be judged not only from its nativity but also from its originality, openheartedness, cleanliness and candidness. This superb River has also given identity to many other entities, nations and regions, so openly - and none of them has any nexus whatsoever with Hinduism. For instance,

Indian Ocean: the ocean wherein the mighty river, Indus is emptied and has been swimming therein, since the time immemorial.

Indonesia; a Muslim country comprised of nearly 13000 islands, situated in the Indian Ocean.

Indochina; the now Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam etc. - once were comprised of a peninsula called Indochina, for its inhabitants had been or considered to be the cross-breed of Indians and Chinese.

West Indies; the chain of islands, Jamaica, Barbados, Dominica etcetera - which includes about 23 entities, situated in the Caribbean Sea, to the west of the Indian Ocean - given this reason the Indonesia along with Madura and south Borneo were once called East Indies, for they were located in the southeast of the Indian Ocean.

Red Indians; the Native Americans or the aborigines, inhabiting north and South America, they are considered as the Indians who crossed the now Bering Strait (in Atlantic) through the ice-bridge in the ancient ice age of Pleistocene epoch. So the main region of those Red Indians has been given officially, the name and status of 'Indiana State' as the 19th state of the USA. In this regard my reliance is on the following borrowed excerpts from the world class, the world's best selling and amazing Multimedia Encyclopedia; 'ENCARTA.' :-

"The Native Americans of North America are believed to be descendants of the Mongoloids, early hunters and gatherers who migrated from Asia to North America in waves possibly from as early as 30,000 BC. These Stone Age peoples crossed an ice-age land bridge across what is now the Bering Strait during the Pleistocene epoch". Furthermore, "Indiana entered the Union on December 1, 1816, as the 19th state. Three 19th-century US presidents—William Henry Harrison, his grandson Benjamin Harrison, and Abraham Lincoln—lived in Indiana for substantial periods.
Manufacturing became the chief economic activity in the early 20th century, but at the start of the 1990s the state was also a major producer of farm commodities, especially corn, soya beans, and pigs. The state's name, which refers to Native Americans ("Indians"), was coined in the 1760s and applied to a private tract of land in Pennsylvania; the name was officially adopted when Indiana Territory was formed in 1800. Indiana is known as the "Hoosier State". Its major cities are Indianapolis (the capital), Fort Wayne, Evansville, Gary, South Bend, and Hammond".
I also reproduce the opinions of the world-renowned geographer, Hecataeus
(550-476) of Miletus, an ancient Greek city of Ionia, on the west coast of Asia Minor (part of modern Turkey) - and of the world-renowned historian, Herodotus (484-425 BC), considered as "father of history" - in the following borrowed words:

'India was the country in the neighborhood of river Indus and this was the ultimate country on the face of the earth. Beyond this lay the "Deserta Incognita" unknown desert or "Marusthali" (i.e. place of death).

It shows that the now Pakistan was India and not the now Bharat.
When it is an established fact that Hind/India have been derived from the grand river Sindh/Indus - now even in the NWFP & northern regions of Pakistan, the name of this river has been 'Aba Sin (viz Aba Sindh) - meaning, father of rivers - then this name is exclusively our entity and property and hence amongst other prides, this also must be our sanctity and identity, not of others who has no right whatsoever upon it - and we alone have the right to snatch it back - and rename our country as 'Islamic Republic Of India' (viz Islami Jamhoria Hind)- or 'Muslim India' to be more appropriate.

The reasons for this urge and drive are very compelling and pressing, for
instance:

1.The foremost and the prime question has been that what is the nationality and what is our nationality? In my view every live nationality, in this world has two inescapable ingredients, the soul (i.e. the religion or I call it the religion nationality) and the body (i.e. the region - or I call it the regional nationality or identity or the nativity) - as these have been inevitable for a living being. The soul can't stay without corporeal body and a corporeal body can't move without soul - both have been concomitant inter se inexorably. The nationality shall be not robust if it lacks either the soul (i.e. the religion or religion nationality) or body (i.e. the region - or the regional nationality or identity). Religion has been optional, hence can be chosen and be changed any time - but nativity has been non-optional, hence can neither be picked out, nor can be replaced.
This is why that after embracing Islam, the soul or nucleus of nationality of the Arabs, Persian and Turks and many others, changed forthwith - and they all became Muslims - but so far their nativities or regional identities were concerned all of them have been intact and will be intact - hence they are the Arab Muslims, the Persian Muslims, the Turks Muslims and so forth.
So much so that the renowned Companions of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAW), Bilal (RA) has been Bilal Habshi, (RA) - (i.e. Bilal the Ethiopian, RA), Salman (RA) has been Salman Farsi (RA) - (i.e. Salman the Persian, RA), Suhaib (RA) has been Suhaib Rumi (RA) - (i.e. Suhaib the Roman, RA) - and one of the Ummahat-ul-Mu'mineen (RA), namely, Omul Mu'mineen, Maria (RA), Mother of Ibrahim (RA), the Prophet Mohammad's son, has been 'Maria Qibthiya' (i.e. Maria the Egyptian, RA) - and Malka of Saba, (also as Sheba) AS (i.e. Sabaean Queen, AS) has been 'Malka Saba,' AS (Queen of Saba) - even after they all embraced Islam. As such the 'Muslim Millat' or Muslim Ummah ( i.e. The Muslim Grand Nation) has been composed of Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turk Muslims, Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Berber Muslims, Tartar Muslims and so much and so forth. And when the reference is to be made to the 'Muslim Grand Nation' – 'Muslim Millat' or 'Muslim Ummah' (viz the universal Muslim Nation) - then the whole world is their 'Grand Nativity'. Because Islam, Qur'an, and the last Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has not been a race, color, ethnic, region or nation specific but has been universal from the day one - and therefore second ingredient of nationality i.e. nativity for the Muslim Grand Nation shall also be universal, namely the entire world.

Faith specific name, Muslim is common noun; inasmuch region specific name (viz geographic specific name) is proper noun for a Muslim. This is one of the edges the Muslim Nation has got over other nations, for there is no conception of 'Millat' or 'Ummah' in 'them' - because in Muslims the nucleus of their nationalities is the same i.e. Islam - whereas in 'them' both the nuclei as well as the peripheries are different.

In seeking the answer of the question my reliance is on the Holy Qur'an: "O MANKIND! LO! WE HAVE CREATED YOU FROM MALE AND FEMALE - AND HAVE MADE NATIONS - AND TRIBES THAT YE MAY KNOW ONE ANOTHER. LO! THE NOBLEST OF YOU, IN THE SIGHT OF ALLAH, IS THE BEST IN CONDUCT. LO! ALLAH IS KNOWER - AWARE."
(SURAH AL-HUJURAT, 39-13).

By going through and thinking through this Holy Verse along with many others relevant to the subject - what I have gathered, as a petty student of the Holy Qura'n there from is that in classification of the humankind the inter se distinction among the nations has been emphasized more overtly while sorting out the various nations. Ergo the following are the criterions/yardsticks for the classification of the mankind:

A- Humanity; humanity has been used as the first criterion or the yardstick to distinguish the human race from all other beings, as evident from the addressee as well as from the discloser of the commonality of their ascendant, in the Holy Verse. And as such it has been established, firstly; that as human beings we all are one and the same entity - and secondly; that human being is second to none vis-à-vis other beings.

B- Loyalty to a faith; now to define and distinguish the humankind inter se, faith has been used as the second criterion or yardstick - and thus the believers of Islam has been declared as the "Muslims" - whereas the believers of Judaism are called Yehuda i.e. Jews - the believers of Christianity are called Nasara or Nazareth or Christians - and so forth were the nations of Aad, Thamud and Sab-i-een accordingly in the ancient periods.


C- Identity or Nativity; But as obvious from the day one that the humankind at variance in religions are found all over the world at variance in regions or nativities - so solely on the basis of the loyalty towards a particular religion without giving reference to the respective region or nativity, the inter se distinction could have neither been made in Muslims nor in the believers of other religions. Hence due to this reason, in the aforementioned Holy Verse as I have been referring to, the most emphasis has been given on the inter se distinction of the various nations and tribes.
Now so for the tribes are concerned even in them the inter se distinction cannot be established without giving reference to the respective progenitor or nativity thereto. Hence in the same way, nations of same belief all over the world could not be distinguished without giving reference to the respective region or nativity. And thus it is for this reason that the words nations and tribes have been used in plural, in the Holy Verse, which signifies that nations as well as the tribes have been more than one. Thus to distinguish the Muslims inter se as well as the Non-Muslims, the respective religion along with the respective region (i.e. regional identity or nativity) has to be used inevitably to consolidate the definition as well as the distinction of various Muslim nations as well as the Non-Muslims all over the world, for the foremost purpose of the aforementioned Holy Revelation has been stated as "THAT YE MAY KNOW ONE ANOTHER". To stress a little more I mean to submit that neither alone a 'religion' could be made the sole basis for a living and a distinctive nationality - and nor alone the 'regional identity' or nativity. And ergo both the definitions of nationality unleashed by the two most celebrated and great scholars, at the juncture of formation of this country; one on the sole basis of religion and the second on the lone basis of region (i.e. regional identity or nativity) with due respect were suffering extremely from extremism. Thus in my opinion both the religion as well as the region (i.e. nativity) has been as vital for a living and a distinctive nationality, as a nucleus and its periphery have been vital for a viable atom. And it is due to this cause that even today the people of Germany, America, United Kingdom, France, Sweden, and Russia etc are as different nations simply on account of their different nativities - as the Buddhists, Sikhs and Chinese have been, on account of their difference in religions as well as in nativities.

Now the next part of my question is what is our nationality?

1. In our case too of course Islam has been the Soul or Nucleus of our nationality and the 'Indian' nativity or 'regional identity' has been the natural body or the natural periphery of our nationality. We could choose the religion of our choice, that we have done well, but we can neither choose the nativity nor substitute, for that is not a matter of choice or substitution - it is always granted - and we have been bestowed upon, the 'Indian' nativity or Indian identity - the original most, the natural most, the ancient most, the magnificent most and the elegant most. We have been Muslims by religion and Indian by region/nativity. As such we have been 'Indian Muslims' - as others are Arab Muslims, Persian Muslims, Turks Muslims. Chinese Muslims, Russian Muslims, Tajak Muslims, Uzbek Muslims, Kazakh Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Maldivian Muslims, Sri-Lankan Muslims, Moroccans Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Albanian Muslims and so on. And if all the Muslim nations, the world over have retained and have been retaining their respective nativity/identity, they have had long before embracing Islam - why we the Muslims of this subcontinent could not retain ours?
Whereas in fact our nativity has been ours exclusively and has been more original and natural, as compared to others. But the funny thing has been that we were staunch and sturdy 'Indian Muslims' at 12.00 midnight, on August 13, 1947 and before - but a little after 12.01 AM, August 14, 1947, all of a sudden we became Pakistani Muslims - altogether a new brand and breed. And as such we stunned and shunned all the pride we had been the custodians thereto, for around one millennium. This is an unprecedented national tragedy and a comedy simultaneously.

2. Every live nationality in the world has been comprised of a nucleus (i.e.
the religion) and the periphery (i.e. the identity/nativity). Hence we observe that there have been, Arab Christians, American Christens, Russian Christians, Bharati Christians and so forth.

3. The secular Turkey (or say with the feeble soul of religion) can survive easily but the most religious Chechnya and the Palestine (without the control of their respective regions) could not - or survive hardly.
<b>
4.We as Indian Muslims had no free homeland after fall of the Muslim Indian Empire and before the freedom - but yet we were a formidable nation, as 'Indian Muslims' and as such we had retained our identity and nationality, though we were in search of free homeland desperately. But the amusing thing is that the moment we seized a marvelous homeland - we left behind our 'religion nationality' as well as 'regional identity' and lost. And hence before the freedom we were in search of a homeland: but after the freedom, our homeland has been in the search of her nation. Simply because of the simulated and childish replacement of our natural nativity - and this is why, still we are bewildering in the search of identity and nationality.

5. By fabricating and calling ourselves as Pakistani Muslims, instead of Indian Muslims, we severed and cut off the root of the two-nation theory on one hand and admitted the 'Bharati Hindus' as 'Indian Hindus' and the left over Muslims i.e. the 'Indian Muslims' as Bharati Muslims, in Bharat, on the other.

6. As Indian Muslims we had played the most dominant, commanding and vital role as an impressive nation in the world history - but simply because of the concoction and impersonation in respect of our nationality, no one knows even today, what is Pakistan and who are Pakistanis? And all the historical pride belonging to the word India was bequeathed to the stingy Hindus, our bloodthirsty archenemy.

7.The word, Pakistan had never ever been a civilization, a culture, a creed or even a city, let alone a country.</b>

8.The word, Pakistan has no real historical meaning and had never ever been a word or entity that had been written or entered in any dictionary or encyclopedia in any part of the world.

9.All the Muslims on either side of the border admit with pride that they have been the Indian Muslims but none of them could understand to admit with pride that how they became Pakistani Muslims and the left behind Muslim brethren as Indian Muslims, hence an identity perplexes developed - and so due to the absence of natural nativity, the artificial locality has been contrived, retrieved and erected instead.

10.The word 'Pakistan' has been as alien for us as it has been for the rest of the world, hence some intentionally while others unintentionally pronounce it incorrectly - very important leaders even pronounce the 'Pakistanis' as the "Pakis" internationally, which is a nude slang.

11.The Bharati Hindus and the Zionists Jews in particular, because of their old roguish habits, have been mispronouncing it in a more offending way as "phukis" and as such throughout the internet they have been using the slang "pakis" as nickname for Pakistanis. Both the Hindus and Jews have the old genetic nexus and hence both have been the 'higher-ranking' slangy twins.
Hence once the Almighty Allah had to intervene when the elderly slangy Jews, by giving extra stress and strain malafidely to the word "Ra'ina" (i.e.
Listen to us) - while talking to the Prophet Mohammad (SAW), used to mispronounce the same as "Ra'aina" which was a slang - hence the Almighty Allah commanded the believers forthwith in these words; "o ye who believe, say not (unto the prophet): "listen to us" (ra'ina) but say look upon us"
(viz unzurna). (Surah Al-Baqarah 2-104). Thus one can gauge how much has been the offensive effect of the mispronounced words?

12.The Hindus were in a high dilemma about the name of the left over country, Bharat, at the time of partition - but it was the late Choudhry Rehmat Ali who answered their dilemma within no time on one hand and created a hitch for us on the other.

13.No one including Choudhry Rehmat Ali has/had the right to propose a name for the nation simply for entertainment and amusement - like a big Choudhry use to propose a name for the newly born baby in their outcaste, in 'pind'
(village) - they call them, 'kami kamin (i.e. base-born persons), as 'nathu'
or 'khairi'.

14.China, Germany, Korea, Yemen and many others have been mangled for centuries but yet none of the part has ever deserted its nativity.

15.Others introduce themselves by disclosing their nationality whereas we confuse others by disclosing ours (viz Pakistanis).

16.Many in us skip even today by saying that nothing lies there in the name
- and that a flower be a flower and a filth be a filth regardless of name - but it lacks any temptation for sanity to be subscribed thereto, for they do forget that it is always a certain name that sprouts the sense of the essence in the first instance - and this is why that name of a certain flower spring forth its pleasant fragrance in the first instance. A goodwill name does not come by overnight - it takes centuries and years that a goodwill name is established and recognized. And here I raise a simple question; can the names of flower and filth can be bartered inter-se?

17.The oneness of Allah Almighty is beyond doubt - but similarly His 99 names, He has preferred for Himself are also beyond question - this is enough to unfold the importance of name.

18.The Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAW) had always preferred to hide even his severe miseries but He (SAW) could not do so while He (SAW) was embarking upon the Hijrah (viz emigration) in 622 AD from 'Mecca the Magnificent' to 'Medina the Luminous'. His aching words even today can cause drooping. While leaving for 'Medina the Luminous' He (SAW) remarked in the throbbing words:
"O Mecca, I swear by Allah that you are the loveliest to me in the whole world and similar are you before Allah as well - had your natives not compelled me I would have not left you ever"

19.Religion has been the best rope to be tied with and to keep tight and unite a nation of course but still even a wise woodcutter never ties the bundle of the wood with a single rope, he usually apply three ropes, lest the one let loose, in the intricate journey.

20.Religion has been the greatest integrating force indeed but its fire (i.e.
warmth and excitement) needs constant fanning by a very fabulous, extraordinary and legendary pious leader - who does not come into being so frequently but rather very very rarely - whereas so far nativity is concerned, it has been self fanning and self fueling all the time, like the jungle fire.

21.Religion always needs nice and virtuous people to keep them blended together - but in case of nativity, even the beasts have been the most loyal and devoted followers. You may throw away a cat for hundred times but it will never leave her native home.

22.Every living being has been granted with two legs at least, no one, if normal has ever been seen as a single footed, for no one can stay at a single foot, like a Hindu jogi (i.e. Hindu ascetic) for longer - so how a nation could stay on a single foot for so longer, particularly when the nation has been surrounded by, with a little exception (i.e. of China, Sri
Lanka) - the evil most neighbors, which have been pushing the nation right from the very beginning. So this was one of the reasons due to which our country was dismembered by the over time pushing neighbor, the bulky and Brahman Bharat, which herself has been fastened foxily, simply with the rope of 'nativity' we left behind.

23.It was the region and not the religion who outfitted the poor Vietnamese to fight for 10 long years against the ruthless US Empire and put down their 30 million human heads, 15 % of its total population in the ordeal of Vietnam War.

24.Two nations at variance in religion can live with peace, provided none of them breaches the region of the other e.g. Egypt & Israel, Pakistan & China
- Iran & Bharat - Bangladesh & Bharat - but they can't live in peace if any one of them breaches the region of the other, despite the similarity in their religions - e.g. Turkey & Kurds - Iran & Kurds – Iraq & Kurds.

25.Religion has been but not always a strong source of convergence - some time it become the source of divergence, when it falls in the hands of illiterate fanatics, hence a nation must be always kept tied with the second rope viz nativity too, for none can leak out there from.

26.Muslims clerics have been successful to split up the Muslims nationhood even within a country by sowing the seeds of petty religious discrepancies amongst them - but has not been successful thus far to split up the nativity. For instance: Iranians Muslims have been bisected insofar as their religion (given the myth of Sunni & Shiite sects) is concerned - but none, including the vocal clerics have thus far been successful to move them a little from their nativity - the regional identity viz Iran. Thus they may be divergent in terms of outfits but convergent in terms of nativity. The same dismal is the case of nearly every Muslim state.

27.To re-catch, reclaim the image and maintain the lineage with the past glory it is the only way out to rename our country with reference to the context.

Now the mind haunting question, I know is; how I exclude the Hindus from the Indian nativity?

The reasons are so many but to cut short, I submit a few:

They have never ever named their country India before, even before the Christ and before Ashoka the Great.

Even today they believe the Indian Subcontinent as 'Bhartavarsha' right from the demise of their Rajah Bharata, far more before the Christ, so they must not be bashful to follow their belief.

In their constitution their official name has been Bharat, right from the beginning and never India so they must not feel embarrassed to follow their constitution.

The English translation for Bharat has never been India so they have no right to play with the syntax of an international language.

If they like antiquity then they should replace their country name by the oldest one viz 'Jambu Dvipa'.

The name "Hindustan" is purely a Persian word and the name "India" is purely its English version - and none of them has anything to do with Sanskrit at least - the suffix "stan" has always been used exclusively by Muslims as suffix with the names of Muslim countries, e.g. Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Daghistan, Kirghizistan, Afghanistan and hence were used by Muslims as well their rulers in the case of India during the 1000 years Muslim rule.

The same is the case of so many Provinces in Muslim countries: Balochistan, Waziristan, Tabristan Gharjistan, Khozistan, Arministan, Nooristan, Sajistan etc. Whereas both, the original name "Bharata" and its corruption the now "Bharat" have had its origin from Sanskrit.

They have neither any share in, nor any regard for the river Sindh/Indus - rather they have been jealous and envious towards it, hence they have no right to get share and regard there from.

Their own Hindu and the most sacred rivers have been 'Brahmaputra' (son of Brahma in Sanskrit) - (or Yarlung Zangbo) & her son rivers, the Ganges and Yamunas; hence they should borrow a name there from, if they like their own rivers.

Hindus have been 99% in Nepal but they have never claimed the name India, for they know that they or their creed have no connection whatsoever, with the India or Indian nativity - and they have been proud of their own nativity namely, 'Nepalese' - which further cements the fact that Hindus, have nothing to do with the word India. *(The End)*



*Bibliography:*
1-'Tafheem-ul-Qur'an' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Aala Maududi
2- 'Tadabur-ul-Qur'an' by Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi
3- Tarjumamul-Qur'an by Maulana Azad
4- 'Massla Qoumiyat' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Aala Maududi
5- 'Kharavela and His Times' by C.R. Mishra 6-'Freedom at Midnight' by co-authors, Mr. Larry Collins & Mr. Dominique Lapierre
7- 'Saptasindhva' by Bode Roy Punjabi
8-'The Wonder that was India' by A.L. Bhasham 9-'The Continent of Circe' by Nirad C. Choudhry
10- 'Wakes up Hindus' by Pundit Shiv Kishan Kaul 11-'Indian Muslims - A political History' by Ram Gopal 12-'Evolution of NWFP' by Rai Bahadur DIWAN CHAND OBHRAI 13-'Dimension of Pakistan Movement' by Professor Mohammad Munawar 14-'The Emergence of Pakistan' by Choudhry Mohammad Ali 15-'India wins Freedom' by Maulana Azad
16- 'The Indian Musalmans' by W. W. Hunter 17-'Pathway to Pakistan' by Choudhry Qaliquzzaman 18-'The Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan Subcontinent' by Ishtiaq Qureshi
19- 'The Great Dived' by HV Hodson
20- 'Ancient India' by RC Dutt
21- 'The Meaning of Pakistan' by Sheikh Mohammad Ashraf
22- 'Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah -The Story of a Nation' by G. Allana
23- 'Hindu – Muslim Question' by Beni Prasad
24- 'The Muslim of British India' by P. Hardy
25- 'The Indus Saga' by Aitzaz Ahsan
26- 'The sacred writings of the world great religions' selected & edited by S. E. Frost, Jr., B.D, Ph.D.
27- 'Naqoosh-e-Iqbal' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Hassan Ali Nadvi 28-'A study of History' by Arnold J. Toynbee 29-'The Oxford History of India' by V A Smith 30-'History of the Ancient World' by Dr.F Korovkin
31- 'Early India & Pakistan to Ashoka' by Sir Mortimor Wheeler 32-'Ancient Pakistan' by Professor Ahmad Hassan Dani
33- 'Tarikh -e- Pak -wa- Hind', published by Talimi Adara Urdu Bazaar Lahore
34- 'Muhsan-e-Insaniyat' by Naeem Sadiqee 35-'Sirat Sarwar-e-Aalam' by Maulana Sayyed Abul Aala Maududi 36-'The Muslim Dilemma in India' by, M.R.A. Baig 37-'The Hindu-Muslim Question' by Professor Beni Prasad
38- 'Muslim Separation in India' by Dr. Abdul Hamid 39-'Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah: The Story of a Nation' by G. Allana
40- 'The meaning of Pakistan' by F.K Khan Durrani 41-'Last Years of British India' by Michael Edward 42-'The Menace of Hindu Imperialism' by Swamy Dharma Theerathaji Mahraj 43-'Know the Hindus, Jews of the Subcontinent' by Mian Amin-ud-Di44Hindustan on the Cross Roads by Professor Balraj Madhok 44-'Caste & Outcaste' by J E Sanjana
45- 'The Muslims of British India' by P. Hardy
46- 'Quaid-i-Azam As I knew Him' by M.A.H. Ispahani 47-'History of the Freedom Movement in India' by Dr. Tara Chand
48- 'Inside Congress' by Swami Shardhananda 49-'Loin Cloth-Laid Bare' by P.K. Dutt 50-'Mother India' by Katherine Mayo
51- 'My Country and My Rulers' by V.K Kulkarni 52-'The Sikh Demand Their Homeland' by Sadhu Swarup Singh 53-'A Warning to the Hindus' by Savitri Devi
54- 'Historical Role of Islam' by M.N. Roy 55-'Hindustan on the Cross Roads' by Professor Balraj Madhok.
56- 'Modern Muslim India and the Birth of Pakistan' by S M Ikram.
57-'India, a wounded Civilization' by V S Naipaul.
58-'Nationalities in India Politics' by M S Variranpillai.
59-'India – a Restatement' by Sir Coupland Reginald.
60- 'The Story of Civilization' by Will Durant.
61-'Verdict on India' by Beverly Nichols.
*The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily
reflect those of despardes.com* *Have Your Say
><despardes@optonline.net?subject=`Islamic Republic of India´>
* *Gajendra Singh, India*

Interesting and amusing piece. He (the author) is a good student. *Gary Rice, USA* India is a nation of people long before Moslems invaded. This is so funny because in 1947 the same people that allowed for the Modern Israel, one year later created Pakistan by carving out half of India for the Moslems. *Chappy Happy, India* Bharat is strong and will be strong all the time, you Pakistanis should know by now, how many times you have lost war with us. According to you, Muslims are top brand, they created historical sites, you forgot to add the barbaric acts Muslims commit all the time, Taj Mahal is one example. *William F. & Alice K. Mathews, USA* No comment on the text or politics of the article; just a strong sense that the point about "stan" being a term for Muslim lands is incorrect. It is my understanding that "stan" is old Persian for "Land of", and has no Muslim context; for instance Turks still call Greece "Yunanistan", and Greece is certainly not Muslim.