Jump to content

Using Bharat over India


zen

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, zen said:

Buddy, I am not sure on that as for many "India" can also be about British India w/ soldiers working and dying for the British (not Indians) and "Indians" serving British to oppress other "Indians".   For e.g. on the orders of Dyer, the people who fired on those protesting at Jallianwala Bagh were "Indians" too working for British "Indian" Army. 

 

Probably, no group that took arms to sacrifice itself for the region called itself "Indian" group to the other natives (For convenience, the British may have had an English version with India in the name for them). The Indian National Army that tried to take on British - Subhash Chandra Bose's army - is popularly called "Azad Hind Fauj" by and for the natives (the people who actually care about the land and not look to advertise themselves to foreigners to gain sympathy and/or impress them). 

 

Because of WW2, it became unsustainable for the British to hold on to the colonies. Not just India but eventually so many countries gained their independence after that war and years under the British/imperialist forces' flag. 

 


 

which is precisely why the term ‘Indian’ is more relevant to me than Bharatiya: my ancestors died and were butchered, enslaved etc. as Indians. Not bharatiyas.

Quote

 

Note that because of Jewish diaspora , Jews have lived all over Europe since ages (BCE), having to adapt to different cultures and learn different languages :winky:

 


 

even non European Jews use the term Jews because that is the term associated with their repeated genocides and discrimination. Hence Jews use the term, which outsiders used to genocide them, when talking to outsiders. We should do the same: bharatiya for us, Indians for the rest.

Quote

 

Earlier you wrote the below: 

 

 

:dontknow:

 

 

 

Your points appear to be mainly concerned with what is important (or easier) for the foreigners while I am more about what is Bharatiya and reconnecting people back to the land's proud history and culture .... Foreigners can learn how to say Bharat. If they are interested or care, they can learn about its history .... I am rooting for the official name (b/w the two) that originates from Sanskrit, the language of Gods with over 3,000 years of known history and connected to this region!

Foreigners learning bharat erases the suffering we did as Indians. It’s our brand-name, more recognizable than bharatiya and it is the term that evokes the memories of genocide, conquest and discrimination. Yehudis didn’t get genocided. Jews did. Bharatiyas didn’t die to the Turks or British. Indians/hindis did. That matters way more than a native term that isn’t our brand name or tied to our suffering.

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

which is precisely why the term ‘Indian’ is more relevant to me than Bharatiya: my ancestors died and were butchered, enslaved etc. as Indians. Not bharatiyas.

 

Buddy, most folks on this forum with links to subcon (including Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) have had their ancestors killed/tortured by the British and British Indians. I do not know why would you present this as "your ancestors" as if it is an unique case for you 

 

 

Quote

 

even non European Jews use the term Jews because that is the term associated with their repeated genocides and discrimination. Hence Jews use the term, which outsiders used to genocide them, when talking to outsiders. We should do the same: bharatiya for us, Indians for the rest.

 

 

 

As mentioned, because of diaspora, Jews settled in other countries .... and also what they call themselves is irrelevant 

 

The region was colonized with the help of other "Indians". Now we have gained independence and moved away from British India. The next step is to reconnect with our history and culture, than be influenced by the colonial masters and work to gain nonexistent sympathies :rolleyes:

 

 

Quote

Foreigners learning bharat erases the suffering 

 

If it is superfluous 

 

 

Quote

It’s our brand-name, more recognizable than bharatiya and it is the term that evokes the memories of genocide, conquest and discrimination. Yehudis didn’t get genocided. Jews did. Bharatiyas didn’t die to the Turks or British. Indians/hindis did. That matters way more than a native term that isn’t our brand name or tied to our suffering.

 

This is a laughable concept. The colonial powers fought two world wars which killed millions of people. They care about what happened to them in those wars than what they did in countries like "India".  Have they done anything to compensate "India"?  Even in "India", many people do not care to remember about what happened during British India .... And as mentioned, being colonized is not exclusive to "India"  .... If you are so concerned about colonial brands change Kolkata back to Calcutta

 

Again what is important is what works for Bharat not foreigners for whom your "concerns" appear to be targeted 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Buddy, most folks on this forum with links to subcon (including Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) have had their ancestors killed/tortured by the British and British Indians. I do not know why would you present this as "your ancestors" as if it is an unique case for you 


 

it’s not meant in a unique way to me- I am speaking for most Indians when I said that our ancestors died due to that being the identity to our killers and oppressors and that also in turn is how we are known to the outside world. 

18 minutes ago, zen said:


 

 

As mentioned, because of diaspora, Jews settled in other countries .... and also what they call themselves is irrelevant 


 

it isn’t irrelevant because as I said, the nomenclature similarity exists with them and this particular thing for Indians. One can’t at one hand say ‘ Hindus don’t do jack **** united ‘ and then whine when someone points out ‘ fine do what the Jews do’.......

 

 

18 minutes ago, zen said:

The region was colonized with the help of other "Indians". Now we have gained independence and moved away from British India. The next step is to reconnect with our history and culture, than be influenced by the colonial masters and work to gain nonexistent sympathies :rolleyes:


 

our culture and history includes Indians as a name as much as it does bharatiya. Historically even in ancient times, indoi was a more used term.

18 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

If it is superfluous 

 


 

how can a nomenclature integral to remember our collective suffering be superfluous ?!

18 minutes ago, zen said:

 

This is a laughable concept. The colonial powers fought two wars which killed millions of people. They care about what happened to them  in those wars and what they did in countries like "India".  Have they done anything to compensate "India"? Also in "India", many people do not care to remember about what happened during British India 


 

we should remember all of it, particularly the British India for both its overwhelming ills and some unique long standing tweaks. 

18 minutes ago, zen said:

Again what is important is what works for Bharat not foreigners for whom your "concerns" appear to be targeted 

It should work for ours too. Saying we should call ourselves x to foreigners and y to locals isn’t catering to foreigners ?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

it’s not meant in a unique way to me- I am speaking for most Indians when I said that our ancestors died due to that being the identity to our killers and oppressors and that also in turn is how we are known to the outside world. 

 

Not really. For e.g. USSR, which suffered events such as Operation Barbarossa, no longer exists. Its history remains through Russia 

 

 

Quote

it isn’t irrelevant because as I said, the nomenclature similarity exists with them and this particular thing for Indians. One can’t at one hand say ‘ Hindus don’t do jack **** united ‘ and then whine when someone points out ‘ fine do what the Jews do’.......

 

Note that people of Israel are called Israelis (not Jews, which is an ethnic group spread all around the globe including Israel)

 

 

Quote

our culture and history includes Indians as a name as much as it does bharatiya. Historically even in ancient times, indoi was a more used term.

 

Already mentioned that significance of  the word derived from Sanskrit

 

 

Quote

how can a nomenclature integral to remember our collective suffering be superfluous ?!

 

The suffering can be if it is only remembered because of a nomenclature associated with it like what you suggested .... if the suffering is ingrained, it can be evoked through "Bharatiya" as well .... You highlighted the irrelevance of your own point

 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, zen said:

Are you judging  Bharat based on the meaning of rat/rot in English? 
 

If so that is the mindset one needs to move away from :dontknow:

No, not based on that. It doesn't sound good to my ears....phonetically speaking. 

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I would like to see both used concurrently and predominantly. This is because reality is, bulk majority of Indians who have died, died due to the ‘indian’/‘Hindi’ tag. The tag matters to us or at least it SHOULD matter to us as much as the term ‘JEW’ matters to Jews. Jew is also like ‘ Indian- a tag used by all non Jews ( just like for India it’s usage is mostly from non Indians) ‘and has been used to subjugate them. Their term for themselves is yahudi/yehudi and they use both terms concurrently and dominantly. Heck, they make sure we know them mostly as Jews and are usually surprised when we call them yehudi.

 As a hindi medium school student, always read them as yahudi in books, not Jew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Gollum said:

No, not based on that. It doesn't sound good to my ears....phonetically speaking. 

Listen to the song below, you may like it :dontknow:

 

 

 

PS a classic

 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, zen said:

 

Not really. For e.g. USSR, which suffered events such as Operation Barbarossa, no longer exists. Its history remains through Russia 

Poor comparison. We are not talking of a war here or there. We are talking of centuries of discrimination and identity. Terms like gypsy over Romani , Jews over yehudi etc are our comparatives 

9 hours ago, zen said:

 

 

Note that people of Israel are called Israelis (not Jews, which is an ethnic group spread all around the globe including Israel)

Ok. And our passport says bharat in Hindi too 

9 hours ago, zen said:

 

 

Already mentioned that significance of  the word derived from Sanskrit

Less significant than a 2300 year old identity that the whole world knows us by and the identity associated with 1000 years of genocide 

9 hours ago, zen said:

 

 

The suffering can be if it is only remembered because of a nomenclature associated with it like what you suggested .... if the suffering is ingrained, it can be evoked through "Bharatiya" as well .... You highlighted the irrelevance of your own point

 

 

The suffering is tied to the terminology of India, not bharat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Poor comparison. We are not talking of a war here or there. We are talking of centuries of discrimination and identity. Terms like gypsy over Romani , Jews over yehudi etc are our comparatives 

Ok. And our passport says bharat in Hindi too 

Less significant than a 2300 year old identity that the whole world knows us by and the identity associated with 1000 years of genocide 

The suffering is tied to the terminology of India, not bharat. 

Buddy, appears as if you are just typing  random stuff :hmmmm:

 

First, you though Pakistan wants the name India
 

Second, you read my posts on Hindus (indigenous religions) and Jews. Without understanding what is being compared (Hindus to Jews), you picked out the word “Jew”  to come up with the “suffering” nonsense and unnecessarily tied up a name with “suffering” as if they are not mutually exclusive. And as if the “suffering” is so superfluous that it vanishes if “India” is called something else. You ignored that  a large part of “Indians” killed “Indians” under British and during partition.  Also you should know that citizens of Israel are called Israelis. Others points on this are made in my previous posts. 

 

Third, you state that “Bharat is on the passport too” when the discussion is on using Bharat, one of the two official names, predominantly as the Sanskrit word connects more with the region culture. Sparing some typing on Sanskrit assuming you would know the importance of the language. 

 

Moving on now unless you want to come up with something new.  After “Pakistan” and “Jews”, may be explore a third concept to keep your boat floating :dontknow:

 

Thank you! 

 

 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, zen said:

Buddy, appears as if you are just typing  random stuff :hmmmm:

Multiple points isn’t random stuff 

45 minutes ago, zen said:

First, you though Pakistan wants the name India

Some of them do

45 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Second, you read my posts on Hindus (indigenous religions) and Jews. Without understanding what is being compared (Hindus to Jews), you picked out the word “Jew”  to come up with the “suffering” nonsense and unnecessarily tied up a name with “suffering” as if they are not mutually exclusive. 

Because they are not mutually inclusive. And suffering nonsense ? Our ancestral suffering is nonsense to you ?? They suffered under those who identified us as Indians. That matters and that’s why the label Indian matters 

45 minutes ago, zen said:

And as if the “suffering” is so superfluous that it vanishes if “India” is called something else. You ignored that  a large part of “Indians” killed “Indians” under British and during partition.  

Not ignored, that is part of our history and part of our suffering. The suffering is tied to our name and nomenclature and erasing the name is insult to the suffering

45 minutes ago, zen said:

Also you should know that citizens of Israel are called Israelis. Others points on this are made in my previous posts. 

So ? This is irrelevant to the point that we should be known as bharatiya to ourselves and Indians to outsiders just like Jews 

45 minutes ago, zen said:

Third, you state that “Bharat is on the passport too” when the discussion is on using Bharat, one of the two official names, predominantly as the Sanskrit word connects more with the region culture. Sparing some typing on Sanskrit assuming you would know the importance of the language. 

Bharat label is secondary importance to India label to me and I have explained why: the essence of India label is far more unifying via history than Bharat and has been used more frequently than Bharat since ancient times.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Multiple points isn’t random stuff 

Some of them do

Because they are not mutually inclusive. And suffering nonsense ? Our ancestral suffering is nonsense to you ?? They suffered under those who identified us as Indians. That matters and that’s why the label Indian matters 

Not ignored, that is part of our history and part of our suffering. The suffering is tied to our name and nomenclature and erasing the name is insult to the suffering

So ? This is irrelevant to the point that we should be known as bharatiya to ourselves and Indians to outsiders just like Jews 

Bharat label is secondary importance to India label to me and I have explained why: the essence of India label is far more unifying via history than Bharat and has been used more frequently than Bharat since ancient times.

 

As I said that I do not buy into the idiotic  “suffering tied up with a name” notion. if suffering is superfluous (like you are making it out to be as if it can only be remembered from the use of some name), no name can evoke its memories .... and if it is not superfluous, a different name does not matter

 

If the idea is to gain sympathies from foreigners (a beggar mentality imo), they do not care for "India" in the first place period.  It is like trying to play a flute in front of a buffalo. As already discussed, the former imperial/colonial powers care more about what they suffered in the two world wars than what they did to their colonies. Unless you have seen some kind of compensation to “India”. The people of “India” know their history under British India.   So again the idea of connecting a name randomly to suffering for a goal that is not even achieved and/or cared for is a non starter from this PoV 
 

The name “India” can also evoke memories of "Indian" traitors killing other "Indians" for British India. The Babus working hard to keep British India well oiled .... Also the partition .... An issue you are not able to grasp from what is seen so far

 

Saying that “I want India for foreigners and Bharat for locals” is out of scope as the two names are already officially used. The idea is to make Bharat the predominant name NOW ("Ind" is currently predominant) for reasons already explained .... and may be to also distance from weird notions such as seek non-existent sympathy from foreigners who do not even care for "India" - a quality or hope present in many "Indians" that may have allowed foreign powers to subjugate "India" in the first place :dontknow:

 

 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/18/2020 at 8:21 AM, zen said:

As I said that I do not buy into the idiotic  “suffering tied up with a name” notion. if suffering is superfluous (like you are making it out to be as if it can only be remembered from the use of some name), no name can evoke its memories .... and if it is not superfluous, a different name does not matter

what you buy or don’t buy is irrelevant. Labels matter and I have given you plenty of examples of IDENTICAL groups like us using the label of their suffering.

On 3/18/2020 at 8:21 AM, zen said:

If the idea is to gain sympathies from foreigners (a beggar mentality imo), they do not care for "India" in the first place period.  It is like trying to play a flute in front of a buffalo. As already discussed, the former imperial/colonial powers care more about what they suffered in the two world wars than what they did to their colonies. Unless you have seen some kind of compensation to “India”. The people of “India” know their history under British India.   So again the idea of connecting a name randomly to suffering for a goal that is not even achieved and/or cared for is a non starter from this PoV 

the idea is to not forget OUR history and in OUR history, the label India matters- way more than bharat does. 

On 3/18/2020 at 8:21 AM, zen said:

The name “India” can also evoke memories of "Indian" traitors killing other "Indians" for British India. The Babus working hard to keep British India well oiled .... Also the partition .... An issue you are not able to grasp from what is seen so far

already grasped, already answered: not to be forgotten, just like Jews don’t hide the stories of their nazi collaborators.

On 3/18/2020 at 8:21 AM, zen said:

Saying that “I want India for foreigners and Bharat for locals” is out of scope as the two names are already officially used. The idea is to make Bharat the predominant name NOW ("Ind" is currently predominant) for reasons already explained .... and may be to also distance from weird notions such as seek non-existent sympathy from foreigners who do not even care for "India" - a quality or hope present in many "Indians" that may have allowed foreign powers to subjugate "India" in the first place :dontknow:

The reason is nothing more than BS of ‘ we came up with this label aeons ago’- it matters less to our suffering, it matters less to our history, it is literally of no use to me to define my history- any more than aryadesha, madhyadesha, jambhudipa, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

what you buy or don’t buy is irrelevant. Labels matter and I have given you plenty of examples of IDENTICAL groups like us using the label of their suffering.

the idea is to not forget OUR history and in OUR history, the label India matters- way more than bharat does. 

already grasped, already answered: not to be forgotten, just like Jews don’t hide the stories of their nazi collaborators.

The reason is nothing more than BS of ‘ we came up with this label aeons ago’- it matters less to our suffering, it matters less to our history, it is literally of no use to me to define my history- any more than aryadesha, madhyadesha, jambhudipa, etc.

The idea is to use Bharat predominantly  .... rest of your opinion are irrelevant to the discussion as the history is not being changed in any way and when both names are already selected by the government and therefore officially in use 

 

As mentioned, your opinion on this matter represents the type of mentality that I do not appreciate. The contrast b/w your and my line of thinking can be highlighted from the use of the word Jews. I praised the Israelis for their ability to mix culture with science and technology and that too when surrounded by hostile elements (and that Hindus should could learn that aspect), while you focused on "suffering" to gain non-existent foreign sympathies.

 

I don't even think that you understand the subtle impact of Jewish diaspora on their history. You tried to tie up all that irrelevant nonsense on Jews as if their goal is to try to "advertise" suffering to foreigners. They may be remembering those events for their own communities.  Wanting to be "India" to foreigners to gain non-existent sympathies and "Bharat" to local (now suffering does not matter relatively) is sick thinking :dontknow:  

 

On this same thread, you first came up with Pakistanis wanting the name India. Now this crap. Then you will read some other posts of mine and probably get some idea from it, and come up with another distorted concept w/o understanding the original premise :lol: 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, zen said:

The idea is to use Bharat predominantly 

fthe idea for me is to use bharat for indians and India for outsiders. Rest of what you said is irrelevant simplistic nonsense devoid of any reason outside of origination.

29 minutes ago, zen said:

.... rest of your opinion are irrelevant to the discussion as the history is not being changed in any way and when both names are already selected by the government and therefore officially in use 

I have already said that both names should be in use, India for foreigners, bharat for Indians.

29 minutes ago, zen said:

 

As mentioned, your opinion on this matter represents the type of mentality that I do not appreciate. The contrast b/w your and my line of thinking can be highlighted from the use of the word Jews. I praised the Israelis for their ability to mix culture with science and technology and that too when surrounded by hostile elements (and that Hindus should could learn that aspect), while you focused on "suffering" to gain non-existent foreign sympathies.

their ability to use science is irrelevant to the discussion that like me, they do not foresake the term Jews, to which their history and suffering is tied to.

29 minutes ago, zen said:


 

 

I don't even think that you understand the subtle impact of Jewish diaspora on their history. You tried to tie up all that irrelevant nonsense on Jews as if their goal is to try to "advertise" suffering to foreigners. They may be remembering those events for their own communities.  Wanting to be "India" to foreigners to gain non-existent sympathies and "Bharat" to local (now suffering does not matter relatively) is sick thinking :dontknow:  

 

 

disagree. What is sick thinking is the notion that a random self created name aeons ago has more meaning than the name that has been our prime identifier globally for 2300 years. As I said, Jews remember the term jew for themselves, so should we for India. It means way more than bharat.

 

29 minutes ago, zen said:

On this same thread, you first came up with Pakistanis wanting the name India. Now this crap. Then you will read some other posts of mine and probably get some idea from it, and come up with another distorted concept w/o understanding the original premise :lol: 

The original premise is nonsense irredentism. As I said, the term Indian means far more to me than bharat does. One is deeply tied to the history of our people and land, the other is a term used less often, in a sanitized sense and just a self designate that isn’t even the most commonly known term to man and speaks nothing to me about our history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

fthe idea for me is to use bharat for indians and India for outsiders. Rest of what you said is irrelevant simplistic nonsense devoid of any reason outside of origination.

I have already said that both names should be in use, India for foreigners, bharat for Indians.

 

Both names are official names of the country so already in use. Bharat needs to be used predominantly period. 

 

 

Quote

their ability to use science is irrelevant to the discussion that like me, they do not foresake the term Jews, to which their history and suffering is tied to.

I do not think that you understand that Jews are found all over the world and are of various nationalities as a result of events such as diaspora .... As someone who wants to get others sympathies at any cost, who knows, tomorrow, you may advocate the N-word to blacks too 

 

 

Quote

disagree. What is sick thinking is the notion that a random self created name aeons ago has more meaning than the name that has been our prime identifier globally for 2300 years. As I said, Jews remember the term jew for themselves, so should we for India. It means way more than bharat.

It is a sick thinking to be wanting (or begging) for sympathies from foreigners by advertising suffering no one cares for .... And when suffering exists throughout 

 

 

Quote

The original premise is nonsense irredentism. As I said, the term Indian means far more to me than bharat does. One is deeply tied to the history of our people and land, the other is a term used less often, in a sanitized sense and just a self designate that isn’t even the most commonly known term to man and speaks nothing to me about our history.

 

You have already displayed your fascination with trying to beg for non-existent foreign sympathy. So it is not surprising that you think that the label India should be used for foreigners. The point is that is the type of the sick mentality (and hoping for bakish) that the "proud" people of Bharat should be moving away from :winky:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Both names are official names of the country so already in use. Bharat needs to be used predominantly period. 


 

both names are official names of country, so alread in use. India needs to be used predominantly, period.

Quote

 

I do not think that you understand that Jews are found all over the world and are of various nationalities as a result of events such as diaspora .... As someone who wants to get others sympathies at any cost, who knows, tomorrow, you may advocate the N-word to blacks too 

irrelevant to the point that it is the label used by all, a term they don’t use for themselves( just like I advocate with bharat) and use it because that is the term that the world knows them by and has oppressed them by. We are in same position.

 

 

Quote

 

It is a sick thinking to be wanting (or begging) for sympathies from foreigners by advertising suffering no one cares for .... And when suffering exists throughout 

it has nothing to do with begging sympathies. It is to remember MY history. My history is far more relevant to me under the term india/hinduphobic/Hindustan, thsn bharat. Period.

Quote

 

 

You have already displayed your fascination with trying to beg for non-existent foreign sympathy. So it is not surprising that you think that the label India should be used for foreigners. The point is that is the type of the sick mentality (and hoping for bakish) that the "proud" people of Bharat should be moving away from :winky:

 

 

 

This isn’t to beg sympathy, this is to remember our suffering on the basis of the nomenclature used to inflict suffering. Just like the Jews. Your only point is, it is an indigenous term. So what. Who cares. It is used less than Hindustan anyways. And even if not, just because we made the term, we should use it more than a far more meaningful, universal term, which happens to be foreign, is specific of superficial, cosmetic nationalism that is laughable in its history erasure. Indian is the word that defines me, more than bharatiya and so it is for many.

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

both names are official names of country, so alread in use. India needs to be used predominantly, period.

Ah ha, so now your true colors are out 

 

Quote

 

irrelevant to the point that it is the label used by all, a term they don’t use for themselves( just like I advocate with bharat) and use it because that is the term that the world knows them by and has oppressed them by. We are in same position.

 

it has nothing to do with begging sympathies. It is to remember MY history. My history is far more relevant to me under the term india/hinduphobic/Hindustan, thsn bharat. Period.

This isn’t to beg sympathy, this is to remember our suffering on the basis of the nomenclature used to inflict suffering. Just like the Jews. Your only point is, it is an indigenous term. So what. Who cares. It is used less than Hindustan anyways. And even if not, just because we made the term, we should use it more than a far more meaningful, universal term, which happens to be foreign, is specific of superficial, cosmetic nationalism that is laughable in its history erasure. Indian is the word that defines me, more than bharat. 

 

I can't be bothered with reading all the "repeated" nonsense  but will say that you have my "sympathies" .... the proud people of "Bharat" (not those oriented towards impressing foreigners by trying out various stunts to gain sympathy and bakshis), who value Sanskrit as the more indigenous language and a reflection of the region's culture would want to use Bharat more predominantly :nod: 

 

Edited by zen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zen said:

Ah ha, so now your true colors are out 


 

spelling it out for you: when one says ‘ x is for us, y is for all foreigners’, it means y is the predominant usage, as no country represents 50% of people or more. Duh

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

I can't be bothered with reading all the "repeated" nonsense  but will say that you have my "sympathies" .... the proud people of "Bharat" (not those oriented towards impressing foreigners by trying out various stunts to gain sympathy and bakshis), who value Sanskrit as the more indigenous language and a reflection of the region's culture would want to use Bharat more predominantly :nod: 

 

The proud people of India will never forget the tag India and its significance through our history, nor will it fade in significance just coz of a random native term of bharatiya. This is purely cosmetic adherence to a name just coz it’s a native term, when the default term has much more history tied to it.search for ‘ India’ launched colonialism. Bharat didn’t. Indians fought and died in world wars, received gallantry as such in all wars. Not bharatiyas. India matters more and it’s insulting to say otherwise, just like the term Jews matter to Jews more than yehudi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Muloghonto said:

spelling it out for you: when one says ‘ x is for us, y is for all foreigners’, it means y is the predominant usage, as no country represents 50% of people or more. Duh

Should be Bharat as discussed 

 

Quote

The proud people of India will never forget the tag India and its significance through our history, nor will it fade in significance just coz of a random native term of bharatiya. This is purely cosmetic adherence to a name just coz it’s a native term, when the default term has much more history tied to it.search for ‘ India’ launched colonialism. Bharat didn’t. Indians fought and died in world wars, received gallantry as such in all wars. Not bharatiyas. India matters more and it’s insulting to say otherwise, just like the term Jews matter to Jews more than yehudi.

 

Please learn more about Jews before "using" them for your benefit much like people like you believe in using "India" .... I understand that this is "internet" but this is too big a topic for your boots 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...