Talk:Hindustan/Archive 1

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)

See United_Provinces_of_Agra_and_Oudh. Vpendse 13:46, 11 December 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.

Topchi topchi7@yahoo.com

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/99.227.90.213|99.227.90.213]] (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.

Persian

How do you write "Hindustan" in Persian? Tuncrypt 15:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Tuncrypt, Hindustan is written as هندوستان in Persian. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Article or disambiguation page?

Do you want this to be an article or a disambiguation page? It currently is both, which is undesirable. TimBentley (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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 115.249.59.165 (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 115.249.59.243 (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)

the proper merge targed would be Names of India, not India. --dab (𒁳) 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hindusthan?

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".

Since I don't know what's correct, I won't change it, but either it should be changed back to "Hindusthan" or the last clause should just be removed. CupawnTae (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

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".

Doubtful Text

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'.

The Rigveda is available online at WikiSource [1]. If this text actually appears, the chapter number and hymn number should be mentioned.--Aayush18 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I checked, the text does not appear anywhere in the Rig Veda.--Aayush18 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Agra, former capital

I suggest cross-referencing the article on Agra, the former capital of Hindustan.Penelope Gordon (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Map

Could somebody find or create a map to illustrate the geographic area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.137.247 (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I've done it.--Boxman88 (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hindustan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071020050542/http://www.usindh.edu.pk/shaikh_ayaz_conf_07/sindh.html to http://www.usindh.edu.pk/shaikh_ayaz_conf_07/sindh.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing the map?

I notice that despite this being an English page, the map is in Hungarian. Should this be changed since the map is labeled in a language other than that of this page or can it remain since the map's features are still there? AnonymousMusician (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Current usage

Although the term Hindustan was historically used to refer to north/northwestern Indian subcontinent, it is widely used today as an alternative name for the Republic of India, along with Bharat. In fact, in common usage, this is likely to be one of the common meanings for this word. In Indian cinema, this is invariably the default meaning of the word .I plan to add a few lines pointing this out in the intro and the current usage section. Let me know if there are any issues regarding this. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you are right. The meaning of Hind, Hindustan and India all changed simultaneously in 1947, moving from the entire subcontinent to the Republic of India. I can't find anybody who thought about why or even noticed that it has happened. But it did happen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That is already discussed in the article. We have an entire section devoted to the newer and alternate meanings in addition to a disambiguation page. In the Dutch language it means all of South Asia. But centuries old usage of the term is what must come first. What more do you want? How many times must I repeat myself?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia, not Dutch. And in the English language today, Hindustan is a commonly used synonym for the Republic of India. There is a Hindustan Motors, Hindustan Petroleum, Hindustan Times and other English names referring to companies and English language newspapers that concern themselves with the Republic of India. There is no wikipedia (or any encyclopedic for that matter) policy which says that 'centuries old usage term is what must come first'. You removed sourced, relevant content from wikipedia, and you need to explain why you did so. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is under WP:COMMONNAME. The historic geographic term has been around and is the original meaning of the word. Hindustan does not mean "India" in English. The English word is India. The meaning of this word in English is "land of the Indus" which encompasses much of eastern Pakistan, parts of North India and Nepal, so "India" is not the correct translation. I "removed sourced, relevant content" it's already in the article and what you did was remove a reliably sourced edit, fully cited and supported by the map. Are you not reading? Even some who use it to refer to "India" does not replace centuries old name. The English translation of the word is "land of the Indus". Please stop edit warring and pointing to a discussion you keep on ignoring.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hindustan is a synonym for India in English, this was in the references you removed. It is also evidenced by the names of companies like Hindustan Petroleum and English newspapers like Hindustan Times, where Hindustan refers to India. English dictionary entries clearly state that Hindustan is the Persian name for India, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hindustan?s=t I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Neither of those references you provided say such a thing. You ignore not only my edit summaries, but my arguments in the discussion, remove reliably sourced edits and are inserting your own original research.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

NadirAli, first off please read talk page postings thoroughly. I linked the entry in the English language dictionary for the word Hindustan, where the very first meaning of the word clearly states that Hindustan is the Persian language name for India. The Lonely Planet source clearly points out the use of Hindustan as a synonym for India for various locations and businesses. See the use of the source here Hindustan Zindabad. Hindustan is used as a synonym for India in English widely and extensively. Here is another source, the Merriam Webster dictionary, that clearly says that Hindustan is used to refer to the Republic of India (among other meanings), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Hindustan I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - When we write a page on a historical term, obviously we describe its history. But if it is a term in current usage, like Hindustan is, then the current usage takes priority. That doesn't stop us from describing the historical meanings. But a random reader of Wikipedia is more likely to be interested in what it means now more than anything else. I support the recent edit of Fundamental metric tensor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• You seem to imply that the term was geographic prior to 1947 and has suddenly "changed" after. That is not the case. The term is often used incorrectly to describe the country India and that is already mentioned in a section of an article (something I pointed out repeatedly only to get ignored). But even today the two terms are not synonymous anymore than Hindu Kush and modern-day India are. This has also been pointed here that the two are not synonymous. The edits by FMT are in violation of WP:OR and WP:RS. And I'm sorry but company names are not reliable sources. If a company in Nepal used the term (despite part of Nepal encompassing Hindustan) does it become a synonym for Nepal? The two "sources" cited in the lead are not supporting of the statement; therefor WP:OR. The Persian name refers to the historical land of the Indus, which Greeks call "India", not the modern state known by the same name. Be clear about what you're citing. The previous long-standing edit is supported by WP:RS--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

NadirAli, you are still not addressing the main reliable sources I have cited. The Merriam-Webster dictionary, dictionary.com, the Lonely Planet reference and the paper by Aparna Pande published in an academic journal. As the article Hindustan Zindabad points out, Hindustan Zindabad translates to "Long Live India" in current usage. You claim that the use of Hindustan for India is 'incorrect', do you have as many English language references to back that claim as have been provided to show that is used to refer to Republic of India in English ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - The term itself is of Persian origin and Republic of India is getting enough mention from what I can see. I checked the citations and I agree with NadirAli that neither support the statements that are being made. Not to mention that this is a blatant example of Original Research. --Xinjao (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the confusion here is caused by the relevant page in the Lonely Planet book not being available for public viewing any more. Here, however is the BBC, an authoritative English media source, clearly equating Hindustan and India. "Clad in a white tracksuit, our MC for the evening encouraged shouts of "Hindustan Zindabad!” (long live India!) from our side of the border," http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20150429-indias-bizarre-border-ritual I can replace the Lonely Planet source with this one if it works better. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

To editor Fundamental metric tensor: I already pointed here that there is a distinction between The Republic of India and Hindustan. I did see dictionary.com and it states the Persian word for India, but that is not referring to the Republic of India, but the historic name which means Land of the Indus. I'll even quote the Persian term, cited in the article "More accurate is the modern Persian designation Hindustan, " land of the Indus," a name properly applying only to that part of the peninsula which lies between the Himalaya and Vindhaya ranges". The BBC source can be placed in the other usages section which already mentions that one of the usages of the word is The Republic of India. However in academia, there is a distinction between Republic of India and Hindustan (also mentioned and cited in the article), which existed for centuries and is the original and geographic meaning of the term. --NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

NadirAli, you keep referring to this article of de Tassy from 1875. It has no bearing on the current usage. Also, the meaning of "Hindustan" as the "land of Indus" is in the time of Darius I. It is not relevant either. You can create a section on historical meanings if you wish. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done. I have now created a section historical meanings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted content

I am deleting this sentence fragment

and the Indus River basin in Pakistan.

References

I don't see any connection between Hindustan and the Indus River basis in these references. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Also removed this unsourced passage:

Alternatively, it may pertain to numerous aspects belonging to two geographical areas: the Indus River basin (eastern Pakistan) during medieval times, or a region in Northern India, east and south of the Yamuna river, between the Vindhya mountains and the Himalayas, amongst the places where Hindustani is spoken.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

These reliably sourced statements should not have been removed

Most formally, in the proper disciplines of Geography and History, Hindustan refers to the region of the upper and middle Ganges valley and the eastern banks of the river Indus. Hindustan by this definition is the region located between the distinct lands of Punjab in the northwest and Bengal in the north-east. So used, the term is not a synonym for the terms "South Asia", "India", or "Country of the Hindus" [sic], or of the modern-day Republic of India, variously interpreted.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NadirAli (talk • contribs)

It is not removed (see the last para), but it is likely to be, because I don't see the sources talking about "disciplines of Geography and History" (with capital "G" and "H" to boot). You might want to look for sources that support the claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

First and main meaing of the word

@NadirAli:, you write: It's reliably soruced and is the first and main menaing of the word. Your sources in the itnro are not reliable and not direct. You even removed two soruces that disitnguishes between the coutnry and the correct goegraphic term.

Is it really reliably sourced? The source you have provided, Abraham Eraly, is a lecturer (even though called a professor) who started writing popular history books after retiring early. I see nothing that indicates that he is a historian (a requirement of WP:HISTRS).

There are tons of acknowledged scholars that say this is wrong. The meaning of Hindustan was never north India even though the Europeans seem to have thought so. Here are some quotes:

Persian name 'Hindu' for the inhabitant of India, and 'Hindustan' for India itself, with the usual Iranian territorial suffix -stan added to 'Hind(u)'.

To the medieval Persian and Arabic users, then, Hind/Hindustan was one country, and they attributed to its people a single faith and culture overlooking its variety. The Hindus, to them, were all followers of a religion that was peculiar to 'Hind'...

So Amir Khusrau (d.1324), the famous Persian poet, would say with pride that he was "a Hindustani Turk", and that Hind was his "home and native land". In his Nuh Sipihr he speaks of India's contributions to the world (the numerals, the Panchatantra and chess!), and of the several regional (Hindawi) languages, the Sanskrit of the learned and the common 'Hindi' tongue; but then Persian, he claimed, was now also a part of the Indian language-stock, having been brought hither by the Ghorians and Turks.

And Amir Khusrau's list of Hindawi languages included south Indian languages too.

The term Hindustan, which in the Naqsh-i-Rustam inscription of Shapur I denoted India on the lower Indus, and which later gradually began to denote more or less the whole of the subcontinent,[108] was used by some of the European authors concerned as a part of bigger India.[109] Hindustan was of course a well-known name for the subcontinent used in India and outside in medieval times.[110] (See also Chapter IV).

I have already cited Baburnama and Ain-i-Akbari in the article. Even more disastrously for you even Hudud al-'Alam described Hindustan as the Indian subcontinent way back in the 10th century! Ray & Chattopadhyaya comment:

That the author by the term Hindustan was referring to the subcontinent is unmistakable. While its western limit is formed by the river Mihran or the Indus, its southern limit goes up to the Great Sea, i.e., the Indian Ocean. The eastern quarter includes in it Qamarun (or Kamarupa in the upper Brahmaputra valley) and Harkand (i.e., Harikela in the Noakhali-Comilla-Chittagong regions of represent Bangladesh).

They also add Mukherjee's explanation of the phenomenon:

B.N.Mukherjee, Foreign Names, has explained the evolution of the connotations of the terms India, Hindustan and Shen-tu. All the three terms originally stood for the lower Indus valley. Later they denoted the entire subcontinent, though the narrower connotations of India, Hindustan and Shen-tu embracing the lower Indus valley continued.

I am afraid Abraham Eraly is a WP:FRINGE source and needs to be thrown out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I see no reference to the Republic of India, India in the historic reference refers to land of the Indus, not the country today known as India. And also your British India map differs from the boundaries of the Republic of India, so they contrast the edits you put in. The last few quotes are what I have stated all along but re-worded. I was even going to quote the Persian reference here, but it got interrupted by an edit conflict. I'll have to slow down on the discussion as I have real-life matters to attend to. One thing though: Jinnah advocated the name Bharat, not India or Hindustan. I'll even provide the source for it. Hindustan is popularly known as India, but not historically or geographically, the name refers to the Indo-Gangetic plain, not any country. I've already addressed "the whole subcontinent" issue it was already in the article before you removed it.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You can attend to it whenever you can attend to it. That doesn't concern us. But I am referring to this specific edit where you re-added the map for Indo-Gangetic plain (and I got ping saying that you reverted my edit). Your source for it is WP:FRINGE and his information is not validated by historians. In the 10th century, before there was any Turko-Persian conquest of India, the meaning of Hindustan was the Indian subcontinent. This is the meaning this article is about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this dictionary entry really settles the matter:

Hindostan, n.p. Pers. Hindustan. (a) 'The country of Hindus', India. In modern native parlance the word indicates distinctively (b) India north of the Nerbudda, and excluseve of Bengal and Behar. The latter provinces are regarded as purb (see Poorub), and all south of the Nerbudda as Dakhan (see Deccan). But the word is used in older Mahommedan authors just as it is used in English school-books and atlases, viz., as (a) the equivalent of India Proper. Thus Babur says of Hindustan: "On the East, the South and the West it is bounded by the Ocean" (310)

It is clear what the "original meaning" was, and what it was during the British colonial times. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya, your theory of Hindustan being India is fridge if anything. That is just a popularization of the word. And why did you remove a longstanding reliably sourced map while adding original research and unreliable sources. Also your British map does not overlap with the current republic of India map, contrasting the claim of Hindustan=ROI.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed it because your claim that Indo-Gangetic plain is the "first and main meaning" is false. I will rework the lead after I finish editing the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

References

"Hindudesh" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hindudesh. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hind

Anupam, you are busily adding dubious information about 'Hind'. The Ray2011 that you are citing is Irfan Habib, whose article is already cited on the page. While Habib is pretty solid on Indian history, his coverage of Persian & Arabic here is pretty wishy-washy. 'Hind' was an Arabic word, not Persian. There is no evidence that it was ever used for Sind by itself. If it was, then 'Sind' would not have arisen in the first place. The Arabs had been trading with India for centuries before they stepped foot in Persia. Habib's timeline is all messed up, if it exists at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It is clear however that in the seventh to ninth centuries the Zunbils and their kinsmen the Kabulshahs ruled over a predominantly Indian rather than a Persianate realm. The Arab geographers, in effect, commonly speak of 'that king of al-Hind ... (who) bore the title of Zunbil'.[4]

Note that Zabul and Kabul are to the west of Peshawar! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3, please refer to the source Al- Hind by Andre Wink, which you cite. It states:

The Arabs, like the Greeks, adopted a pre-existing Persian term, but they were the first to extend its application to the entire Indianized region from Sind and Makran to the Indonesian Archipelago and mainland Southeast Asia.

The word Hind is a Persian word that entered the Arabic lexicon; the source you cited corroborates that. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The word is derived from Persian, but not the meaning. The Persian had no knowledge of the extent of India, whereas the sea-faring Arabs did. It is likely that the Persians learnt from the Arabs, what India was.

If you add the above information to the article, citing Wink, I would have no objection. But please don't mix up the Persians and the Arabs! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3, I'll re-add the information and if you would like to edit it, please feel free to do so. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record, note the difference between what quoted from Wink with Habib's ruminations:

'Hind' thus originally meant all the country around, and east of, the Indus.

The Indonesian archipelago is nowhere near the Indus! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

More broadly, the scholars are loath to say it, all the names derived from Indus quickly became cultural signifiers, not geographical. You see that happening even in Herodotus. There are two "Indias" in his book according to the experts: one was very likely Sindh, the other was cultural India whose extent Herodotus did not know. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is east of the Indus, as the source claims. I'm not disagreeing with you that the Arabs had a broader scope for the term than the Persians. However, I simply wanted to address your original claim that "Hind was an Arabic word". Now that you agree that it is indeed derived from Persian and not the other way around, I think we are on the same page. Happy editing, Anupam^Talk 23:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I might say it is to the west of Indus also :-)

I am still saying that Hind is an Arabic word. To call it a Persian word is as silly as saying "India" is a Persian word. Do you see the point? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

And, to stretch the point, Hindavi is a Persian word, and Hindi is an Arabic word. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Salutary?

"The Indian Armed Forces use the salutary version of the name, "Jai Hind" as a battle cry.".

I don't understand. "Salutary" means "healthy", "curative", etc. (from Latin salus = health). What has got to do with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.249.60.11 (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)