Jump to content

Muloghonto

Members L2
  • Content Count

    10,158
  • Betting tokens

    0
  • Runs

    162,590 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. as I mentioned, it is not more culturally aligned, it’s just more modern prevalence aligned. your unsubstantiated opinion on calling it dumb stuff still remains unsubstantiated. There is no fraud because VHP isn’t just a religious organization ad they accept atheist Hindus in the ranks along savarkars original intent.
  2. the far more common reference in Puranas is jambhudwipa. the indigenous Indian sources used Hindustan far more commonly than bharat in all medieval literature, including Hindu. India and its persianized cognate hindh/Hindustan itself sees far more usage in the last 1000 years than bharat. King gems for eg addressed his crowning as samrat of Hindustan. Shivaji used Hindustan more than bharat. And as I said, just like jews never forget the foreign used word Jew, neither should we forget India. Our people have problem remembering history - this is one clear example of why.
  3. Except I have stated my case: it is more relevant because it is more used in history, coinage and material source. It hasnt been addressed, not even once. Only been called hogwash a million times with no substantiation. We can all see all you can do is call it nonsense or fraud or what not but not demonstrate your case. Point remains: india means more to our history , it originated from a native term, it has been used more than Bharat in history. so you don’t have a case for Bharat being more important culturally. What is true, is it is most prevalent amongst current Indians- hence it finds mention officially. But India is the term that has dominance in prevalence through history over Bharat and Bharat means less to many of us than India or hindh U saying it’s a fraud criteria doesn’t make it so. I do belong to VHP coz I am a member of it. Yep, that was in the past. Still am an atheist. Still part of VHP. They know, I know and soon all shall know that being hindu is more than believing in silly Gods or not.
  4. You saying it is an irrelevant criteria doesn’t make it so.you haven’t addressed the logic of nomenclature analogy, you only said that it doesn’t apply. That’s a proclamation not a demonstration. Since you are not king, your proclamation mean nothing. It isn’t to showcase our suffering. I said it is relevant to us remembering our suffering and Gave an example of Jews doing it too. I am implying that it is relevant to their identity on the same way why India matter so much more. Your assumption is this is to highlight suffering or displaying anything or seeking sympathy. I am simply noting that’s this is established protocol for many discriminated people to remember their history. It does because Hindustan is a term linked to India linguistically and basis of origin. Good you admit this. So hindu reference to Bharat , which is even less than Jambhudwipa, is dismissed as justly secondary Mahabarat is one book, it doesn’t override the far more important cultural history of India and hindh. No, my problem is it is a modern Hindu prevalence term that was an obscure term in ancient times or medieval times and going with Bharat > India is typical historical Hindu chutiyagiri of forgetting history instead of preserving it. Again, a baseless assertion. No reasoning provided = you have no case. If you cannot refute a point, it means te point is valid. That’s why you are so pissed off coz you can’t refute the point so no one agrees with you. You think so because your understanding and knowlege of history and culture is shallow and so you cannot handle more than ‘ hurr durr mahabharata hurr durr mogambo khush hua’ Simpleton logic Sorry but VHP is where I belong and I am thankful that VHP isn’t listening to chutiyas like you who want to erase historical terms
  5. Again, just judgement and not counter to the analogy, since linking yourself saying ‘it’s baseless’ earlier isn’t proof of you DEMONSTRATING its baseless. You have not demonstrated why it’s baseless, just said so. Therefore you are the deluded one. Disagreed in one word: No. reason provided: history is culture too and it’s historically far less aligned than India/hindh. your explanation has no basis, it’s a proclamation, not reasoned explanation Calling it irrelevant doesn’t make it so. The fact that India gets referred to as India/hindustan by our own people including Hindus more than Bharat in literature is decisive and against your claim that it is more aligned to our culture. Coining a term today and not respecting the history of the existent terms is why India is dominated by people like you and have no sense of history. We are fixing that. ps: india, the English/Greek of Persian Hindustan or prakritik hindustana >> Bharat. As it is on passport. As it should be.
  6. They haven’t been thrown out because there has been no argument against it, just judgement by you. Nobody has seen you REFUTE the point, we all see you whining against it. The analogies are not irrelevant just coz you say so. You have not demonstrated how it’s irrelevant to the logic it is invoked by. You have just said ‘ I disagree’, no reasoning behind it. Ok. I know my history and I stand by it. Hindustan as a far greater written, carved, stamped and printed history than Bharat in terms of prevalence. And no Buddhist or Jain source calls it Bharat either. So why should it get priority over the historically most used and identified term ever ? India -hindh- Hindustan are all alliterative of sindhu as well. It originated from a native term itself too. So fack off with the nonsense that it has greater historical weight just coz of Mahabharata or a minority of Puranas
  7. Hasnt more halal eaters have died worldwide than kufr idolators from the subcontinent ?
  8. Sounds like you just want to have the last word and still can’t show any fault with my example of how identity nomenclature should be for marginalized groups like us, irrespective of diaspora nonsense strawman. you can call nonsense all you wish but without saying why the example is nonsense, you will never have a case. Saying Jews live around the world is irrelevant to the point of how Jews, gypsies, native Americans, indians etc see or should see nomenclature from their common shared ground reasons. Neither can you challenge the fact that on the entirety of Indian literature in existence from ancient times, Puranas, Vedas, itihasas, Pali cannon, Jain sources, Greek, Chinese, Roman etc sources along with actual edicts and epigraphy of rulers in subcontinent; it is India or its alliteration hindh/Hindustan is far more common than any other term. The term ‘aryadesha/artavarta’ sees more usage than Bharat. This is an objective fact and outside of purely Hindu sources we don’t even see the term bharata or bharatvarsha from Jain or Buddhist Indian literature. Ever. Thus bharata is a historically insignificant term compared to these and modern Hindu sentiments have accorded it co equal status to India/hindh/Hindustan , which is a historically far more common and prevalent term for our region. But primacy should always remain with the term we see the actual inscriptions Ps: india first, Bharat second. As it should be, as it is on the passport pps: feel free to open a thread and challenge me on history anytime of the week. Double dare, karke Dekh lo nateeja.
  9. Well no one cares then why you think India should have less purchase than Bharat. That’s all you can say to parallels you can’t refute. Yes the type of mentality that doesn’t forget their history ever, which is lacking amongst our people.
  10. My post was pretty simple: india matters more because it matters more in history and example of why it should matter more is given via another marginalized group like us and how they handle terminologies. So you only care about manmani and not take into consideration what people want. Got it. The name with the most prevalence in history is India. This is indisputable. It isn’t about timeline, it’s about FREQUENCY. India is used way more frequently than Bharat, Hindustan and aryadesha are used more frequently than bharat. It is to demonstrate that Bharat is an obscure term compared to Hindustan or India. Jews use Jew to remember their suffering and never let the foreigners forget. This is not about gaining sympathies, it’s about not letting them and ourselves forget. Global diaspora or local diaspora is irrelevant to how a marginalized community uses nomenclature. There is no do your homework when asked to substantiate why the analogy is erroneous.you saying it’s erroneous and failing to demonstrate just shows you cannot challenge the analogy logically. A country with history like ours puts India first, Bharat second on the documents. As it should be. India means more to our people’s hisyory than an exclusively Hindu terminology that not even Hindu texts use more frequently than aryadesha or Hindustan
  11. I rest my case. It’s because of people like you indians don’t care about history. nope. History is also culture. it would be erasure from our minds. Whether they care or not is irrelevant to whether we should forget or not. Just like jews. that’s deflection. Point is, bharat is a name of lesser value than Hindustan or India. attempt to draw parallel to Jews on how they remember terms they identify has already been explained, you saying it’s pointless without showing how it is, won’t cut the mustard either. Your inclination to erase indian history for silly name game is showing. I care more than the one trying to erase or devalue the name associated with the suffering. India is predominant and should be because it is way more relevant to our history. Equating jews and indians on nomenclature usage of terminologies for a discriminated group is a simple parallel you are yet to refute the logic of.
  12. Per the net volume of all first hand sources stretching back 2300 years. Indoo(Chin), India( English, French,Latin, Greek, Aramaic) and Hind( Arabic, Turkic and Farsi) usage is orders of magnitude greater in entire body of first hand sources -literature, epigraphy etc. than Bharat. This is a historical fact. It is more aligned with the country’s language and a portion of our culture. Just like India is also reflective of our culture: ie, via history. Sure but I might wanna point out to you that last time someone changed the name of a region to reflect ‘ancient original word’, it was Saddam who arabized Uruq to Iraq. Nothing is said in foreign perspective. What I chose to call myself to foreigners is my perspective and I choose to call myself Indian. It is objectively the dominant identity of the region as far as a geographical term goes. Hindustan is relevant because if one says that Bharat deserves greater recognition despite being an official name, same case applies even more so to Hindustan as this word has also greater usage historically amongst the natives than bharatvarsha. Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it valid. Fact remains the Jewish analogy has not been addressed by you re nomenclature. I don’t think you speak for the people anymore than I do, both of us sitting in YVR. In my experience the term India matters more and I think my efforts to promote India as the dominant term is valid. Lol. Ok. Challenge me in history at your own peril. You are the kind of person who doesn’t keep history and identity intact and forgets the suffering like our people do. Coz you are silly re: preferring a name just coz we came up with it but didn’t use it much. You missed the point as usual. Jana gana mana is going to be sung mostly by Indians and to them I fully endorse using the term Bharat as the dominant term. Hence my point: thank you for making it obvious that our anthem is similar to the Israeli anthem in terms of nomenclature: it is relevant to us. But just like the Jews never will forget to use the term Jew to foreigners, we too should use the term Indian to foreigners.
  13. India is more aligned to our written and known history than Bharat. History is part of culture. Nothing has been discussed, it’s a baseless charge made up by you. I clarified and you againran away that if Indian is to appeal to foreign sympathies, so too is Jew then. Yes. It means it’s a term that got used here and there by Hindus and a distant second to Hindustan. The lack of parallel is your assessment without any justifications. The parallel has already been spelt out by me and you cannot address: both are terms non native to the group in question. Both are terms used for bulk majority of their written documents and history and both are terms used to inflict pain on said communities. Only thing you demonstrated is you don’t even understand the difference between an alliteration and a nomenclature change. It isn’t aligned more to the countries culture because our history is far more tied with India than Bharat and history is culture as well. People like you want cosmetic change and devalue terms that have greater historical weight out of foolish ‘we made it’ reasons that no nationalistic side agrees with. It devalues the history associated with India as the word. We are republic of India first, Bharat second- as on our passports. No the foreigners have subjugated us because of people like you, who like to forget or devalue terms like India or forgot about Ashoka or Samudragupta. Because they do not preserve the history. My views are in accordance to other historically discriminated and far prouder ethnicities like the Jews, something that has been pointed out and you have no legitimate counter to. Nobody knows foreign national anthems except for an expat here or there. This further proves my point that it should be Bharat for indians and India for all non Indians.
  14. No my opposition is because it’s less aligned to our history and material evidence backs me up on this. Hindustan is far more aligned to our culture than Bharat, a term we ONLY see Hindus use historically. Not a single Jain or Buddhist source uses Bharat FYI. Ie, your opposition is unjustified and just a more obtuse way of ‘ I just don’t like your argument but I can’t refute it’. Until you refute the parallel with reasoning, everyone can see your opposition to the analogy has no credibility. Erasing a name erases the history associated with it. This is why India should be the foremost identity. These have no relevance to a tag that is also applied to ETHNICALLY DISCRIMINATED PEOPLE. Further more, most of those name changes are alliteration changes, not nomenclature change. Madras to Chennai is a name change, Kolkata from Calcutta or Mumbai from Bombay is just alliteration change. I don’t prefer Bharat and you are failing to respect that. Most Indians I know with respect the tag India. That is how it should be because this name is more relevant to us than Bharat.
  15. And the name India has been used far more frequently in written history and is far more embedded in our history. This is just empty proclamation from you with no justification. I have already outlined how another historically oppressed community that has a much stronger reputation in honouring their history than us, follow my methodology in identical nomenclature scenario. You have presented no reasoning behind your blanket dismissal. And I do not appreciate people of your mentality who erase our history for cosmetic ‘Indian native terminologies’ that are of less value historically and in terms of identity
  16. I think the name India is more aligned to the regions history and identity. This isn’t about gaining sympathies, it’s the identity to remember. Just like with jews- they don’t use the Jew label to gain sympathy, they use it more than yehudi because it has more meaning in history. Just like India is to us. There is nothing inappropriate in the parallel, which has been explained as such: an identical label applied by outsiders ( Indian: Jew), which is the actual term used through most of written history and which is the identity under which they were oppressed and thus that identity matters. Saying this is inaccurate or faulty doesn’t make it so-especially when you don’t demonstrate the rationale like I have
  17. no, because your only reason is ‘ we came up with it’. In that case, should be Hindustan, it has more significance than bharat for 1500 years running. I have already stated how in this particular case of identity, Jews who call themselves yehudi, hold on to Jews as a nomenclature, because that’s what the world knows them as and that’s what the word their suffering is tied to. Hitler addressed Jews, not yehudis. Queen of England conquered India, ghaznavi pillaged Hindh. These nomenclature matter more than bharatiya for the actual historical weight it carries through the ages. Trying to make bharat as dominant is an insult to our history. You are the kind of people who forgets the zulm and then whine why we don’t remember historical injustices: coz people like you seek to modify it cosmetically for silly ideas like ‘ foreign term’.
  18. Ghazwa e Islam is already underway. We will take care of your desert shrines too.somnath treatment.
  19. 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 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.
  20. both names are official names of country, so alread in use. India needs to be used predominantly, period. 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 bharatiya and so it is for many.
  21. 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. 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. 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. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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. 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’....... 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. how can a nomenclature integral to remember our collective suffering be superfluous ?! we should remember all of it, particularly the British India for both its overwhelming ills and some unique long standing tweaks. It should work for ours too. Saying we should call ourselves x to foreigners and y to locals isn’t catering to foreigners ?!
×
×
  • Create New...