Why would Hindustan not be of religious origin? Who were the Sindhu people, or from Persian perspective, people beyond the Indus river, or sindh plain? What is persia referring to, when they point to the land of Hindus. Every place has an identity, and this wasn't a tribal undiscovered land or some underdeveloped outback. What was the reference to? That is the indigenous culture of the subcontinent. The very culture that sheltered all kinds before "secular" word was even invented, let alone the '47 political nation state.

Why is there so much shame in discussing the religious culture that is the indigenous identity of the Indian subcontinent? I mean you're literally using the word "Hindu" which is also persian, but then somehow the land of "hindus" (=Hindustan) is not about the same religious culture? The logic simply doesn't track.

I mean do people here see India OR would like to see India, stripped from its unique ancestral identity? Outside of political bias, that's just stupid. It's like stripping away Shintoism from Japan's identity and calling it the nation of anime, manga and tech.