BeautifulGame Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 What issues did ppl have with the term Madras? It's an English name and Tamil people wanted Tamil name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkt.india Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 1 hour ago, zen said: Expanding that further, Hindus are people of the region and Hindutva is not about religion but promoting the original / native culture of the region Sindhu became Hindu, people who lived across Sindhu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 India is a word by the foreigners to describe us. India itself has no meaning for us. Bharat represents our history, both the good and the bad (Muslim invasion) while India represents just a young country starting from 1947. For us, thus at least unofficial we need to realize this is Bharat, which tells us our huge history and past civilization. Obviously, for secularism, and linguistic reasons, India is our proper name. Thus, there is no debate as the question isn't about versus but it's value of the word for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, someone said: India is a word by the foreigners to describe us. India itself has no meaning for us. Bharat represents our history, both the good and the bad (Muslim invasion) while India represents just a young country starting from 1947. For us, thus at least unofficial we need to realize this is Bharat, which tells us our huge history and past civilization. Obviously, for secularism, and linguistic reasons, India is our proper name. Thus, there is no debate as the question isn't about versus but it's value of the word for us. Bharat does not represent us. the term 'bharat' is used in our history far less than aryadesha/aryavarta. India is our brand-name. Period. Its usage is far more prevalent over the last 2000+ years than Bharat/Bharatvarsha has EVER been for us. It has greater value due to this. Edited June 28, 2017 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 19 hours ago, Tendu_10 said: lmao pakistanis want nothing to do with indic or vedic history. They have been brainwashed into thinking that "Islamic" history is theirs. Pakistani schools history starts with Muhammad Bin Qasims invasion of Sindh n all the Muslim Invaders of India are presented as the forefathers of Pakistanis. Despite most Pakistanis being descendants of native converts from dharmic religions. only small percentage have legitimate turkic mongol arab or persian heritage. But most Pakistanis claim they have some foreign descent to distinguish themselves from Indians. Pakistanis dont want to claim any of Indian subcontinents rich pre islamic heritage. Its the same in Egypt only Copts care about Egypts Pharaonic and pre islamic history. the muslims identify with the arab invaders of egypt and dont really look at history before that. First time ive heard such a theory. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk Learn to read. I've already provided one Pakistani website that tries to claim India as ancient Pakistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tendu_10 Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Learn to read. I've already provided one Pakistani website that tries to claim India as ancient Pakistan. one obscure Pakistani site doesnt change the mindset of most Pakistanis. In their mind India = Hindu. They want nothing to do with pre islamic Pakistan or the indus valley civilisation. When they talk about "their" history they talk about the 4 Caliphs after their Prophet the Islamic Colonisation of the east and their "Indian" history starts with Muhammad bin Qasims invasion of Sindh. Most Pakistani dont knows or cares about Pakistan before Muhammad bin Qasim. They only identify with the Muslim conquerors of the subcontinent. Pakistanis dont want to reclaim any pre islamic heritage rather they want to distance themselves from it and claim foreign ancestry from the various Muslim hordes that have ravaged the subcontinent since Muhammad bin Qasim. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted June 28, 2017 Author Share Posted June 28, 2017 22 hours ago, BeautifulGame said: It's an English name and Tamil people wanted Tamil name. Similarly, Bharat is a native name that people want it to be used first to represent the country at official level for e.g. Bharat vs Aus, Bharat-US talks, Bharat's medal tally in Olympics, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 35 minutes ago, Tendu_10 said: one obscure Pakistani site doesnt change the mindset of most Pakistanis. In their mind India = Hindu. They want nothing to do with pre islamic Pakistan or the indus valley civilisation. When they talk about "their" history they talk about the 4 Caliphs after their Prophet the Islamic Colonisation of the east and their "Indian" history starts with Muhammad bin Qasims invasion of Sindh. Most Pakistani dont knows or cares about Pakistan before Muhammad bin Qasim. They only identify with the Muslim conquerors of the subcontinent. Pakistanis dont want to reclaim any pre islamic heritage rather they want to distance themselves from it and claim foreign ancestry from the various Muslim hordes that have ravaged the subcontinent since Muhammad bin Qasim. Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk You fail to understand. From their POV, its not what they want to associate with, its what they want to dis-associate from us. One of them, is denial of Indian civilization as a civilization of its own and therefore, trying to de-legitimize India as a concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 On 6/28/2017 at 3:00 PM, Muloghonto said: Bharat does not represent us. the term 'bharat' is used in our history far less than aryadesha/aryavarta. India is our brand-name. Period. Its usage is far more prevalent over the last 2000+ years than Bharat/Bharatvarsha has EVER been for us. It has greater value due to this. India is the word for the world, it's our global brand name and that will not change. But "India" term is not for us nor have any meaning to us. India name came from the Greeks and the Romans and thus it's not possible to have this name to understand us. If somebody has to study us, he/she needs to understand Bharat, not India. Bharat is older than India, and tells everything about us. India is just a name on the map. That's the reality and it will never change. Thus, it makes so much sense to include Bharat in our studies, history and everyday life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, someone said: India is the word for the world, it's our global brand name and that will not change. But "India" term is not for us nor have any meaning to us. India name came from the Greeks and the Romans and thus it's not possible to have this name to understand us. If somebody has to study us, he/she needs to understand Bharat, not India. Bharat is older than India, and tells everything about us. India is just a name on the map. That's the reality and it will never change. Thus, it makes so much sense to include Bharat in our studies, history and everyday life. I simply do not agree Bharat is the term that historically represents us the best. Because in our entire body of historic literature (Puranas, Epics, Buddhist and Jain works), the term 'Aryadesha/ Aryavarta' is used far more commonly. this generation and the last few identify most with bharat because its the name we've used since independence and gained currency in the last few hundred years only. Edited June 30, 2017 by Muloghonto Vilander and Tendu_10 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBN Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) how the world will pronunce: bharat - > buh-rat -> borat/brat bharti ->buh-ratee bhartiya - > buh-rat-ia disclaimer: outsiders should learn to pronounce it properly, but most will not be able to. not that we should be concerned but me thinks that's how they'll pronounce it Edited June 30, 2017 by PBN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: I simply do not agree Bharat is the term that historically represents us the best. Because in our entire body of historic literature (Puranas, Epics, Buddhist and Jain works), the term 'Aryadesha/ Aryavarta' is used far more commonly. this generation and the last few identify most with bharat because its the name we've used since independence and gained currency in the last few hundred years only. Who says there only needs to be one single name? I don't have a problem with Aryavarta etc, just that "Bharat" is the leading name. Calling the country in many different names is perfectly normal. Just that India isn't the leading name for us, maybe for the world but not us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 On 6/27/2017 at 7:11 AM, zen said: So are you opposing the word Bharat as it is not derived from Tamil? Bharat is one of the two official names of the country. If you have a Bharatiya passport, look at the cover wtf are you ranting Zen really. Why would any one loose the name India for something as arbid as Bharat ? is it the name Bharat or is it Baaharaath ? lol India is a brand, admittedly of lack of latrines and pooping in the open as of now but we can work on it. Bhaarath is an Indian nick name, for us to call it amoung ourselves it sure is local and we know it but its probably not best suited to rename India as a country with that. I mean why would we loose our significance as the Indian civilization. Its India (Bharat) always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Vilander said: India is a brand, admittedly of lack of latrines and pooping in the open as of now but we can work on it. Bhaarath is an Indian nick name, for us to call it amoung ourselves it sure is local and we know it but its probably not best suited to rename India as a country with that. I mean why would we loose our significance as the Indian civilization. Its India (Bharat) always. It's the other way around. Bharat is a proper name for us while our nickname is "India" which was given by Greeks and is used globally. Studying through the term "India" does not tell our civilization, history. It's where Bharat or any other of our own names comes in. The key is one of our own names created by us. India is our global name and will rightly remain so. Edited June 30, 2017 by someone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, someone said: It's the other way around. Bharat is a proper name for us while our nickname is "India" which was given by Greeks and is used globally. Studying through the term "India" does not tell our civilization, history. It's where Bharat or any other of our own names comes in. The key is one of our own names created by us. India is our global name and will rightly remain so. the name 'bharat' is not universally accepted by Indians in the ancient time or even prevalent. if it were, we'd see it being used more than just a few times. Almost all records of ancient Indian stuff written by Indians, when talking about travelling from point X to Y, use 'aryadesha' and 'aryavarta' showing us, it is more likely to be our 'formal name' by us. 'Bharat/Bharatvarsha' is literally as rare as an Indian these days using 'South Asia' instead of 'Indian subcontinent' - happens, but so much rarer than the latter. Even Hindu puranas use the term 'Aryadesha' more often. And India is the leading name for us and the world. because even Indians use India more often than Bharat amongst themselves and foreigners (who make up far more than the population of India). I have never heard a Southie, ever talking to me using 'Bharat'. Or even every Punjabi i encounter over the years use 'Indiaaa' not 'Bharat'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: the name 'bharat' is not universally accepted by Indians in the ancient time or even prevalent. if it were, we'd see it being used more than just a few times. Almost all records of ancient Indian stuff written by Indians, when talking about travelling from point X to Y, use 'aryadesha' and 'aryavarta' showing us, it is more likely to be our 'formal name' by us. 'Bharat/Bharatvarsha' is literally as rare as an Indian these days using 'South Asia' instead of 'Indian subcontinent' - happens, but so much rarer than the latter. Even Hindu puranas use the term 'Aryadesha' more often. And India is the leading name for us and the world. because even Indians use India more often than Bharat amongst themselves and foreigners (who make up far more than the population of India). I have never heard a Southie, ever talking to me using 'Bharat'. Or even every Punjabi i encounter over the years use 'Indiaaa' not 'Bharat'. Wow, you just want to argue for the sake of it. As I said there is no competition or a versus/fight between the different terms. There are and will be more than one name for our country. No names will be universally accepted by all, and that includes "India" as well. So, there are many names and all can be right. Yet, India is not a leading name for us as it's not from here and is made by the Greeks. Of course, India will be said often by us and the world but that is just to locate/map us. But to truly represent us, we need our own name like Bharat or any other local names. There is big difference between just mapping our country and representing us to show our story, history, civilization. As I wrote earlier: If somebody has to study us, he/she needs to understand Bharat, not India. Bharat is older than India, and tells everything about us. It can be Bharat or any other names made by us. And hopefully my last reply to you.. Edited June 30, 2017 by someone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tibarn Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 14 minutes ago, someone said: Wow, you just want to argue for the sake of it. As I said there is no competition or a versus/fight between the different terms. There are and will be more than one name for our country. No names will be universally accepted by all, and that includes "India" as well. So, there are many names and all can be right. Yet, India is not a leading name for us as it's not from here and is made by the Greeks. Of course, India will be said often by us and the world but that is just to locate/map us. But to truly represent us, we need our own name like Bharat or any other local names. There is big difference between just mapping our country and representing us to show our story, history, civilization. As I wrote earlier: If somebody has to study us, he/she needs to understand Bharat, not India. Bharat is older than India, and tells everything about us. It can be Bharat or any other names made by us. And hopefully my last reply to you.. As i said, even amongst Indians, we use the term India just as often, if not more often. Just because Greeks called us Indians, doesn't make it any less representational of us. that is what i am trying to say. I just don't see why Bharat has to be the one to truly represent us any more than India. Out of India, Bharat, Aryadesha and Aryavarta, Bharat, by far, is used the least frequently for all our history till modern time. So it has the least historical significance to us as a label Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
someone Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: As i said, even amongst Indians, we use the term India just as often, if not more often. Just because Greeks called us Indians, doesn't make it any less representational of us. that is what i am trying to say. I just don't see why Bharat has to be the one to truly represent us any more than India. Out of India, Bharat, Aryadesha and Aryavarta, Bharat, by far, is used the least frequently for all our history till modern time. So it has the least historical significance to us as a label You never give up. Repeating the same nonsense over and over. It is not a fight like between Bharat vs Aryavarta. That is never the case and really completely irrelevant. All of these words are compatible with each other. I am happy with the term India. But through this India term, one will never be able to tell our civilization, history and story. You also know that very well. India is relatively new word and not made by us. We have older words like Bharat and such words will remain significant and powerful. Thus, its usage remains even today to describe us. And my last reply to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, someone said: You never give up. Repeating the same nonsense over and over. It is not a fight like between Bharat vs Aryavarta. That is never the case and really completely irrelevant. All of these words are compatible with each other. I am happy with the term India. But through this India term, one will never be able to tell our civilization, history and story. You also know that very well. India is relatively new word and not made by us. We have older words like Bharat and such words will remain significant and powerful. Thus, its usage remains even today to describe us. And my last reply to you. I simply do not agree that an older world is more representational because its older. What is more prevalent is more representational or what has a better historical context is more representational. As i said, i've never spoken to a Punjabi or Southie guy who used 'Bharat'. Ever. Even in bengali, we say 'Bharot' but fluent, Bengali speaking Punjabis in Kolkata still call it 'India' in mid sentence bengali. So it is a more representational term. Actually outside of Hindi and Bengali speakers, i've never heard the term Bharat used by any other Indian ethnicity in conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts