|WikiProject India||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject South Asia||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Or parts thereof
If "the modern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh" is "a part of the former United Provinces", pray, which are the other parts thereof? WikiSceptic 18:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The other parts are now in madhya pradesh, bihar, Delhi, and most importantly, UTTARANCHAL.(Duh)
In Urdu, Hind is spelled ھند. Wouldn't Hindustan therefore be ھندوستان? I may be mistaken. Vpendse 04:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hindustan does not mean land of the hindus, it merely is a geographical appellation for the land east of the Indus river. Its inhabitants were called 'Hindi' by the migrants coming from the west, in fact in Turkish even today an Indian is called 'Hindi'. Hindi is a Persian word meaning idol and who worship idol deities were identified as Hindus. And since the religion of the 'Hindus' did not have a name, they were called Hindu, a word that does not appear in any of what we know as 'Hindu' scriptures today. These writings are really the product of a civilization and not the monopoly of a religion. Of course, some inheritors of this legacy are trying to run as far away as possible from this association and Arabize themselves and even deny their genetic origins.
Agreed, Hindustan does not mean land of the "Hindus" since no one refereed to themselves as "Hindu" before the Moguls came. And "Hinduism" as the categorization of native South Asian pagan cults into "one religion" was done by the British who demography them as one community against the Moguls who were of Muslim descent. Thus they created two divisions of majority and minority groupings for their administrative purposes. [Special:Contributions/188.8.131.52|184.108.40.206]] (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Hindustan is a modification of the Persian/Sanskrit name for the land of Sindh. "-Stan" in both Farsi and Sanskrit alludes to "stance", "platform", "land." The people living in "Hindustan" did not really label themselves that until recently. In fact, in ancient times, there was not much that differentiated a Persian from a Sindh (similar language, customs, etc.). At any rate, the religion that many speak of when they say "Hinduism" is better termed "Sanatana Dharma." The word Hindu remains for "one of the majority community who hails from Hindustan" "Hindi" (which follows the Indo-European way of naming languages) denotes the language. Turkish influence in inconsequential because these basic terms are derived from Persian and not Turkish words. Hindi word for a language was first coined by the Moguls for administration purposes of those communities who practiced Devanagari script for their language.
How do you write "Hindustan" in Persian? Tuncrypt 15:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Article or disambiguation page?
- Its a disambiguatin page by all means but I feel it requires some cleanup.--seXie(t0lk) 08:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
No entry for India
Shouldn't there be an entry for India. Hindustan is referred to as indian subcontinent.
I will rearrange the page(s), making a separate disambiguation page. If anyone has a point splash it here --seXie(t0lk) 21:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
No merger with India article. == == Yes merger with India article.
I think Hindustan should not be as a separate article itself. There should be only one article "India". Hind was a name called instead of India. Hindustan was referred to this subcontinent at one time. today the same area is officially called India. It would not be correct to have 2 pages talking about the same area under 2 different names. this could create difference in the information for the same location. We are not talking about the Arab world in this page. they were the once who named this part as Hind due to the Indus River by calling it Hindus River. As they did not have a pronunciation of "I" in their language they pronounced this as "H". This is the basic difference between Hind and India. Now as the constitution of India has officially called the region as India or Bharat, no other official word can exist as a name for the region. Today even if the Arab world still pronounces as Hind, It is written as India. Therefore I don't understand the requirement of a new article. May 30, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I think it should merger to a small writeup as the origination of the word in the names of India column. Hindustan is a non official name cited by the constitution of India article one. It has some roots as how it came to form. The arab world still calls India by its old name but it is Hind or al-Hind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
No 'Hindustan' was and still remains important in the Indian subcontinent as a popular word for the land 'India'. If intention of Wikipedia is to be an importance knowledge resource, Hindustan should be an independent article, in my humble opinion. But info in it should give past history in one para or two and should admit that some of the present usages of the word may die away with time. 'India' article may just refer to this usage. Further, Hindustani should be an independent article and it should concentrate mainly on the 'language' and 'music' of this name. My two cents: Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think the material in article Hindustan should be split between India, Names of India and Hindustani. Hindustan can be mentioned in India article as one of the alternative names of India, in Names of India the etymology be explained more in detail and in Hindustani issues such as Hindustani culture, music, etc., can be dealt with. Hindustan ought to be a redirect to India. --Soman (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Dear Soman, I like your comment. Perhaps it will be fine if "Hindustan"" redirects the reader to "India", where the word Hindustan may be appropriately explained, as suggested by you, of course provided we can some how protect it there against future deletions. But, if consensus is some thing else, it will be fine too for me. Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- This article is fine as it is. Merging to India would be absurd, as this details do not belong in that article, which has so much more basic information to cover. Merging to Hindustani would make appropriate classification impossible. Postlebury (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindustan&diff=387487547&oldid=355792113 changed "rendered as Hindusthan" to "rendered as Hindustan". I've no idea if the original was correct, but the sentence now doesn't make sense:
"gave birth to the word Hindustan, which was rendered as Hindustan".
I'm sick of people constantly injecting this BS revisionism about the word actually being "Hindusthan" as if it was a Sanskrit name. Pre-Islamic South Asians never self-identified as "Hindus". This was even true during the so-called "Muslim period". "Hindu" was more of a vague label attached to them by the Persian-speaking Muslim invaders/immigrants that was later more strictly defined religiously by British ethnographers and census takers. As such, the word "Hindustan" had no roots in Sanskritic Brahminical culture. It was a name applied by Persianate Muslims to the northern part of the subcontinent. The "stan" in Hindustan therefore was the Farsi suffix, not the Sanskrit cognate "sthana", which was rarely used anyway, as the common word for land in India was desha or varta. "Hindustan" is of the same root as "Afghanistan", "Turkestan", "Kurdistan", or even "Pakistan".
The following text-
An alternate and infrequently cited theory on the origin of the word Hindustan puts it further the back in time. This may be based on the Sanskrit shloka from the Barhaspatya Samhita of the Rigveda (ca. 1700-1100 BC): Himalyam Samarabhya Yavadindusarovaram Tam Deonirmitam Desham Hindusthanam Prachakshate Translation: The country which starts from Himalayas and the borders of which reach till the Indian Ocean (Indu Sarovaram), has been created by Gods and its name is Hindusthan.
looks dubious. It could be an attempt by some fringe right wing groups to create and perpetuate a myth. The above text could not have appeared in the Rigveda simply because the word 'Hindu' is of Persian origin. The Sanskrit word was 'Sindhu'. If anything, Rigveda would have used 'Sindhusthan'.
- I checked, the text does not appear anywhere in the Rig Veda.--Aayush18 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)