Pakistan might change its name to India, if India changes its name.
It has been rumoured that India might change its name to Bharat, leaving the name up for grabs.
A state-issued invitation to the G20 summit this weekend, hosted by India, referred to the country in a different way, inviting world leaders to a state dinner hosted by the “president of Bharat”.
Meanwhile, prime minister, Narendra Modi, typically refers to India as Bharat, a word dating back to ancient Hindu scriptures written in Sanskrit, and one of two official names for the country under its constitution.
And the broadcaster News18 said unnamed government sources had told it that members of his Hindu nationalist ruling party, Bharatiya Janata party (BJP), who have previously campaigned against using the name India, which was imposed during the British conquest, would put forward a special resolution to give precedence to the name Bharat in the next session of parliament - so watch this space.
Now, nationalists in Pakistan have reportedly claimed they’ve got dibs on the name because it’s tied to the Indus region, so they might lay a claim on the name, India if it is derecognised at the UN.
But given the Indian government has not made any official statement on changing the name of the country, they might have to stick with Pakistan for a while yet.
Would you mind informing those of us who do not understand the dynamics of the relationship what happened to make things so bitter? Is it a one or two time event or a series of continuous bitter rivalry?
Oh it’s a long complicated history which is worthy of a niche and focus in history within higher education for example.
I suppose you could start at 1947 when Pakistan and India gained independence and even then depending on how you view it, you could claim that the British screwed both sides during the event furthering animosity between Hindus and Muslims in the region. The dream of a Muslim independent state starts at ~1857 when the Mughals who were primarily Muslim ruled over India for about a ~1000yrs lost out to the British which would then become to displace Mughals and rule over India and pillage it’s natural resources, not to say the Mughals weren’t guilty of their own set of atrocities. Again depending on how you look at, you could also consider Mughals invaders to a certain extent when they started gaining influence around ~700s with arrival of delegates of the Ummayad Caliphate and imposed themselves over a local populace that was primarily Hindu and Buddhist which existed in the region for 1000s of years prior with their own rich histories and cultures.
Forwarding back over to after the events of 1947, which lead to the creation of India and Pakistan and present day Bangladesh which was part of Pakistan as well. Bangladesh’s independence from Pakistan, 4 wars between India and Pakistan and regular skirmishes over the territorial dispute of Kashmir later, you have a very complicated and deep history influencing feelings for almost any individual that belongs to the region.
Largely, the people actually love each other and are fascinated by their similarities and differences in cultures, only to be manipulated by their governments for political favors and votes like any other region in the world.
Like all history, there’s numerous takes and narratives on any detail you can pick, so consider this as just one take of it.
Putting a note for further clarity just so we get things technically clear: “The Mughals” as in the actual dynasty didn’t rule India for a thousand years. It was Muslims and their presence in general. The Mughals were a part of the Muslim presence in India which shaped the subcontinent before the British came in.
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about? The Mughals were a Timurid descendant dynasty who founded the Mughal empire in the 1500s and it was basically gone by the middle of the 18th century.
Early Muslim conquests in India were primarily done by individuals of arabic background.
?
How does anything I’ve written contradict what you’re talking about?
What the fuck are YOU talking about?
Edit: Clearly context isn’t a thing and we’re on the nit pick bandwagon. So here, let’s spell it out. I’m using Mughals as a synonym for Muslim because it’s simpler to understand and paint a picture of what transpired in broad strokes.
Dont do it. You are seriously misrepresenting the situation. Invasions of that kind barely consisted of any significant population exchange. Muslim and non-muslim populace is just about 100% genetically identical.
Its kind of like calling germans nazis. Sure, the nazi rule is still at large in the central of Europe. Hey, its just broad strokes, dude…
Holy fuck. What a leap.
Muslims were invaders. Doesn’t mean the net effect of the invasions were bad for the region in terms of social and economic development. There were legitimate wars between Ummayads and Rajputs.
What the fuck are you on about genetics? This has nothing to do with genetics and the make up of the populace there.
I’m gonna be honest when you mentioned mughals ruling India for 1000 years i did get a bit confused so i get why their nitpicking. But other than that it’s good👍
Thanks for keeping it civil. I amended the post just so it’s clear.
Well thank you for sharing, I learned something today.
Of course! Happy to help.
Tldr?