INAUM to INDIA
INAUM, ENAUM, s. Ar. inam, a gift (from a superior), a favour, but especially in India a gift of rent-
free land: also land so held. Inamdar, the holder of such lands. A full detail of the different kinds of
inam, especially among the Mahrattas, will be found in Wilson, s.v. The word is also used in Western
India for bucksheesh (q.v.). This use is said to have given rise to a little mistake on the part of an
English political traveller some 30 or 40 years ago, when there had been some agitation regarding the
inam lands and the alleged harshness of the Government in dealing with such claims. The traveller
reported that the public feeling in the west of India was so strong on this subject that his very palankin-
bearers at the end of their stage invariably joined their hands in supplication, shouting, Inam! Inam!
INDIA, INDIES, n.p. A book might be written on this name. We can only notice a few points in connection
It is not easy, if it be possible, to find a truly native (i.e. Hindu) name for the whole country which
we call India; but the conception certainly existed from an early date. Bharatavarsha is used apparently
in the Puranas with something like this conception. Jambudwipa, a term belonging to the mythical cosmography,
d in the Buddhist books, an
d sometimes, by the natives of the south, even now. The accuracy
of the defini
tions of India in some of the Greek and Roman authors shows the existence of the same
conception of the co
untry that we have now; a conception also obvious in the modes of speech of Hwen
Tsang and the other Chinese pilgrims. The Asoka inscriptions, c. B.C. 250, had enumerated Indian kingdoms covering a considerable part of the conception, and in the great inscription at Tanjore, of the 11th century A.D., which incidentally mentions the conquest (real or imaginary) of a great part of India, by the king of Tanjore, Vira-Chola, the same system is followed. In a copperplate of the 11th century, by the Chalukya dynasty of Kalyana, we find the expression from the Himalaya to the Bridge (Ind. Antiq.
i. 81), i.e. the Bridge of Rama, or Adams Bridge, as our maps have it. And Mahommedan definitions
as old, and with the name, will be found below. Under the Hindu kings of Vijayanagara also (from the
14th century) inscriptions indicate all India by like expressions.
The origin of the name is without doubt
(Skt.) Sindhu, the sea, and thence the Great River on the West, and the country on its banks, which
we still call Sindh.1 By a change common in many parts of the world, and in various parts of India itself,
this name exchanged the initial sibilant for an aspirate, and became (eventually) in Persia Hindu, and
so passed on to the Greeks and Latins, viz. [Greek Text] Indoi for the people, [Greek Text] IndoV for
the river, [Greek Text] Indikh and India for the country on its banks. Given this name for the western
tract, and the conception of the country as a whole to which we have alluded, the name in the mouths
of foreigners naturally but gradually spread to the whole.
Some have imagined that the name of the land
of Nod (wandering), to which Cain is said to have migrated, and which has the same consonants, is
but a form of this; which is worth noting, as this idea may have had to do with the curious statement in
some medieval writers (e.g. John Marignolli) that certain eastern races were the descendants of Cain.
In the form Hidhu [Hindus, see Encycl. Bibl. ii. 2169] India appears in the great cuneiform inscription
on the tomb of Darius Hystaspes near Persepolis, coupled with Gadara (i.e. Gandhara, or the Peshawar
country), and no doubt still in some degree restricted in its application. In the Hebrew of Esther i. 1,
and viii. 9, the form is Hod(d)u, or perhaps rather Hiddu (see also Peritsol below). The first Greek
writers to speak of India and the Indians were Hecataeus of Miletus, Herodotus, and Ctesias (B.C. c.
500, c. 440, c. 400). The last, though repeating more fables than Herodotus, shows a truer conception
of what India was.
Before going further, we ought to point out that India itself is a Latin form, and does
not appear in a Greek writer, we believe, before Lucian and Polyænus, both writers of the middle of the
2nd century. The Greek form is [Greek Text] h Indikh, or else The Land of the Indians.
The name of
India spread not only from its original application, as denoting the country on the banks of the Indus, to
the whole peninsula between (and including) the valleys of Indus and Ganges; but also in a vaguer way
to all the regions beyond. The compromise between the vaguer and the more precise use of the term
is seen in Ptolemy, where the boundaries of the true India are defined, on the whole, with surprising
exactness, as India within the Ganges, whilst the darker regions beyond appear as India beyond the
Ganges. And this double conception of India, as India Proper (as we may call it), and India in the vaguer
sense, has descended to our own time.
So vague became the conception in the dark ages that the
name is sometimes found to be used as synonymous with Asia, Europe, Africa, and India, forming the
three parts of the world. Earlier than this, however, we find a tendency to discriminate different Indias,