The name should not be India, Hindustan ?

Question

India is now a country name. But before 1947, the name of the Indian sub-continent was known to the country. Now that Pakistan, Bangladesh ... Until 1947, these countries were also included in India. 
Pakistan has divided into India. That's not right. /
In fact, India is divided into one-sixth of Hindustan and Pakistan is in the other. And then there were their names as East Pakistan and West Pakistan. Later, 1971 East Pakistan was separated from the name of Bangladesh and West Pakistan only Pakistan. 
So I think that should be known as Hindustan, not India.Is it ?

the internet · Accepted Answer

Bramahnistan, Peoplistan, Lower Nepal and Southern Afghanistan would be even better names.

Edit: Where is Sikhistan in that?

Lomax · Answer

In ancient times, India was simply the land beyond the river Indus - ie it was simply a geographical term. And yes, it's ironic that India is named after a river that mostly flows through Pakistan.

However; most of the people who live in India are happy to keep calling it India, and I do think it should be up to them.

Anonymous · Answer

No because the "-stan" ending is a Muslim or Islamist aberration. Keep the Jihad and the Jihadists OUT of India. Pakistan, the country next door, is a nest of Islamic vipers and hid out bin Laden for years. Every winter Pakistan harbours the Al qaeda fighters from Afghanistan and sends them back in the spring to MURDER Americans.

The name should not be India, Hindustan ?

Trending Questions