Thread by @rkkaulsr

The Notion of the Nation of India. Professor Shonaleeka Kaul is right in her objective response and Mekhola Gomes @oldthingsarefun & Malavika Kasturi are the manipulators. thewire.in/history/the-em…. In addition, I provide Iranian sources below on the existence of India. @TIinExile

The Avesta which predates Christ mentions India in four places.
1)The first mention is in the Venidad Chapter 1 verse 19. It mentions that out of the sixteen countries the fifteenth one is the Hapta Hindu country.

It extends east and west of the Indus river (with seven not five branches, the Sapta Sindu of the Vedas, Sindhu, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, Kabul) which waters it. It has two disadvantages, namely that there is scorching heat and the girls attain puberty at a young age.

2)Yacna (Sarosh Yasht) LVII, 29. Who goes from Hindvo (hindusthan) in the East to Nineveh in the West. Thus the eastern boundary of Iran was India.

3)Meher Yasht, I04. …….whether that person be in Hindustan (Hindvo)……..Note, the reference to Hapta has been dropped and speak of it only as Hindu. This means that Hindu or India was not confined only to the lands watered by the Indus but had expanded to regions beyond it.

4)Tir Yaslit, 32. Then vapour arises from Hindvat or Mount Hindu from which comes Hindu Kush.

The Pahalvi text Bundahesh kills two birds with one stone. In Chapter XXIX it states that Kashmir is part of India.
In Firdousi’s Shah Nameh circa 1000 A. D. where there is a description of the war between Iran and Turan (Central Asia north of Afghanistan),

Kashmir is mentioned five times always in connection with India. As Troyer says in his translation of the Rajatarangini, the ancients always spoke of them together.

Furthermore, Firdousi writes that in the reign of Noushiravan, Kashmir was part of the empire of an Indian king Jamhour.

The Iranians and then the Greeks after them had a clear idea of the existence of India in ancient times. The preponderance of evidence supports Shonaleeka.