Using Bharat over India

[zen]

5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

 

Ps: india first, Bharat second. As it should be, as it is on the passport 

Ok so you do not even realize that your points have been thrown out .... his is heights of sickness  .... and on top of that you want to sidetrack the topic on "Jews" for some irrelevant analogies that you have drawn (also explained earlier) and goals that noone wants to achieve 

 

And then you have it in you to talk about strawman   

 

 

Quote

pps: feel free to open a thread and challenge me on history anytime of the week. Double dare, karke Dekh lo nateeja.

This is not some kids show and that you can type anything. Learn history first before even thinking about wasting others time

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, zen said:

Ok so you do not even realize that your points have been thrown out ....

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.

1 hour ago, zen said:

 

his is heights of sickness  .... and on top of that you want to sidetrack the topic on "Jews" for some irrelevant analogies that you have drawn (also explained earlier) and goals that noone wants to achieve 

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. 

1 hour ago, zen said:

And then you have it in you to talk about strawman   

 

 

This is not some kids show and that you can type anything. Learn history first before even thinking about wasting others time

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 

[zen]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

 

 

^ Again the delusions of a sick mind w/ extremely short memory - Link

 

 

Quote

 

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 

 

 

Explained in 3 words - "culturally more aligned"  

 

Now that a certain term should be historically used for x years is an example of a collection of your irrelevant points (as already explained). The term can even be coined today to be culturally aligned (which of course your unidimensional mind cannot grasp)

[Muloghonto]

13 minutes ago, zen said:

 

^ Again the delusions of a sick mind w/ extremely short memory - Link

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.

Quote

 

 

Explained in 3 words - "culturally more aligned"  

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 

Quote

Now that a certain term should be historically used for x years is an example of a collection of your irrelevant points (as already explained). The term can even be coined today to be culturally aligned (which of course your unidimensional mind cannot grasp)

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.

Edited March 22, 2020 by Muloghonto

[zen]

50 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

 

You are only demonstrating your inability to grasp the simple idea -> your disagreement  based on your irrelevant criterias (not matter how relevant you may consider them to be are for no relevance to the topic. For e.g. - now you may think that xyz cannot be done because of abc. But has anybody told you (agreed with you) to judge xyz based on abc. Then you want others to refute based on abc

 

Now you may want to think that "India" (quotation implies the name not the region) should be used for foreigners to showcase our suffering -> but has anybody told you  (or agreed with you) that having a name to highlight on suffering to gain sympathies should be a criteria? 

 

Then you read a post of mine on Hindus and Jews on another topic and, like a crow trying to emulate a crane, drop Jews in to this topic to say that Jews use Jews to highlight/imply suffering to foreigners. Again is highlighting suffering agreed to be a criteria? Additionally, when reading the history of Jews diaspora is recommended to you to understand the nuances, you want to turn this into an exercise on history

 

Then you bring in term "Hindustan" to suggest that it is more relevant than "Bharat", when the two official names of Bharat and India are already selected by the government. And relevance of the term Hindustan to Bharat or Hindustan to India does not matter to the discussion. But again somehow you want to turn it into trying to prove the relevance. While failing to understand that judging Bharat and India based on Hindustan is not a criteria. 

 

On top of that when simple things can be deduced from terms such as "Bharat" (people know its significance), along w/ connection with culturally important works such as "Mahabharat", you do not understand that (or pretend not to) 

 

 

The bottom of your problem is that "Bharat" sounds like a Hindu name. And your posts against Hindus are on this forum 

 

 

In short, the base of your entire argument is irrelevant. .... Your undereducated approach is about throwing in everything except the kitchen sink to the discussion to see something sticks - relevant or not (you are a living example of a strawman). On a forum, you may think you may get away such things (an attempt at fraud) as no one cares to waste time on you but in real world guys like you get thrown out of a building for such things  

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2020 by zen

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, zen said:

 

You are only demonstrating your inability to grasp the simple idea -> your disagreement  based on your irrelevant criterias (not matter how relevant you may consider them to be is for no relevance to the topic. For e.g. - now you may think that xyz cannot be done because of abc. But has anybody told you (agreed with you) to judge xyz based on abc. 

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.

4 minutes ago, zen said:

Now you may want to think that "India" (quotation implies the name not the region) should be used for foreigners to showcase our suffering -> but has anybody told you that having a name to highlight on suffering to gain sympathies should be a criteria?

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. 

4 minutes ago, zen said:

Then you read a post of mine on Hindus and Jews on another topic and, like a crow trying to emulate a crane, drop Jews in to this topic to say that Jews use Jews to highlight/imply suffering to foreigners. Again is highlighting suffering agreed to be a criteria? Additionally, when reading the history of Jews diaspora is recommended to you to understand the nuances, you want to turn this into an exercise on history

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.

4 minutes ago, zen said:

Then you bring in term "Hindustan" to suggest that it is more relevant than "Bharat", when the two official names of Bharat and India are already selected by the government. And relevance of Hindustan to Bharat or Hindustan to India does not matter to the discussion.

It does because Hindustan is a term linked to India linguistically and basis of origin.

4 minutes ago, zen said:

But again somehow you want to turn it into trying to prove the relevance. While failing to understand that judging Bharat and India based on Hindustan is not an agreed criteria. 

Good you admit this. So hindu reference to Bharat , which is even less than Jambhudwipa, is dismissed as justly secondary 

4 minutes ago, zen said:

On top of that when a simple thing can itself be deduced from terms such as "Bharat", along w/ connection with culturally important works such as "Mahabharat", you do not understand that (or pretend not to) 

Mahabarat is one book, it doesn’t override the far more important cultural history of India and hindh.

4 minutes ago, zen said:

 

The bottom of your problem is that "Bharat" sounds like a Hindu name. And your posts against Hindus are on this forum 

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.

4 minutes ago, zen said:

 

In short, the base of your entire argument is irrelevant.

Again, a baseless assertion. No reasoning provided = you have no case.

4 minutes ago, zen said:

Your false and dumb criteria, along with the need for others to refute your irrelevant points, is a figment of your sick mind ...

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.

4 minutes ago, zen said:

. Your undereducated approach is about throwing in everything except the kitchen sink to see something sticks (you are a living and breathing example of a strawman).

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 

4 minutes ago, zen said:

On a forum, you may think you may get away such things (and that what your modus operandi is) as no one cares to waste time on you but in real world guys like you get thrown out of a building for doing such things ....  And if you still do not realize your mental state is beyond help 

 

 

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 

[zen]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

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.I

The reverse is that your saying relevant does not make them relevant 

 

Quote

 

t 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 

 

 

the hogwash, which has been addressed in one form or other 

 

Quote

 

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 

 

Again a fraud criteria (about what you think where you belong), which people don't cares for, invented .... and your sick mind will want people to refute that you do not belong to VHP 

 

 

Appears as if you forgot your posts such as below 

 

On 6/24/2017 at 3:32 PM, Muloghonto said:

Now watch all the sanghis run away at being exposed as tools of Pakistani. 

 

Unless your belief has magically changed, IIRC, you had claimed to be an atheist (a situation probably arising from the experience of being raised in a Brahmin family or something to that order and you not agreeing with the concepts), then you had tried to make it Buddhism vs. Hinduism (esp. in terms of which is prominent on topics when people who respect both  discuss Hinduism), and now VHP is where you below 

 

PS maybe get some help  

Edited March 22, 2020 by zen

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, zen said:

The reverse is that your saying relevant does not make them relevant 

Except I have stated my case: it is more relevant because it is more used in history, coinage and material source. 

Quote

 

the hogwash, which has been addressed in one form or other 

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 

Quote

Again a fraud criteria (about what you think where you belong), which people don't cares for, invented .... and your sick mind will want people to refute that you do not belong to VHP 

U saying it’s a fraud criteria doesn’t make it so. I do belong to VHP coz I am a member of it. 

Quote

 

Appears as if you forgot your posts such as below 

Yep, that was in the past. 

Quote

 

Unless your belief has magically changed, IIRC, you had claimed to be an atheist (a situation probably arising from the experience of being raised in a Brahmin family or something to that order and you not agreeing with the concepts), then you had tried to make it Buddhism vs. Hinduism (esp. in terms of which is prominent on topics when people who respect both  discuss Hinduism), and now VHP is where you below 

 

PS maybe get some help  

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. 

Edited March 22, 2020 by Muloghonto

[sarcastic]

29 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

Great discussions here by @Muloghonto and @zen.

BTW, just a point to note here is "Mahabharat" is a term where obvious 'a' in Bharat is a long syllable mean, "the story of great Bharatas" (Not to mention that the first letter 'a' is a long syllable). Here Bharatas means 'descendants of Bharat'. 

Bharatas here means the descendants of Bharat (here the a is short syllable). King Bharat is the son of Dushyanta and Sakuntala and is one of the ancestors (and probably the most celebrated) of Kauravas and Pandavas. 

Since Mahabharat is essentially story of these descendants and the war between them, the epic is named so. 

Coming to the point of naming our country as Bharatavarsha, it is because of this legendary king Bharat, who is said to be the first king who united all the realms of India into one single empire. 

Edited March 22, 2020 by sarcastic

[sarcastic]

A lot of discussion about these names India and Bharat and several others is on this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_for_India.

[zen]

5 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

As mentioned, the need to make  “Bharat” more predominant (or even get rid of “India”) as it is more culturally aligned 

 

I do not mind you wasting time on writing the same dumb stuff, including why and what is relevant to  “people like you” (means zilch), which has been addressed in one form or other including by pointing at its irrelevance

 

As for you being (or working to be) a part of VHP (as if it is relevant to the discussion), people can  work to be a part of any organization with the intention to commit fraud.  To call Gods silly to people who worship them only further highlights your mental instability 

Edited March 22, 2020 by zen

[coffee_rules]

10 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

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.

No, don’t agree with these lines, I am not sure what the context is, for you to say these, but Bharat is what we refer to as our land. As you have noted, it is coming from our voice,!the shruthi- vedas and from the smriti , our memory preserved in the various Puranas. It is the name of the land given to it by the original inhabitants or the indigenous people of the land.
 

In most names given to landmarks like rivers, the indigenous names are still remembered rather than the new names of the language that occupies the land. Niagara, Mississippi, Seine, Danube, Ganga etc. They are not changed by how foreigners or occupiers know it by. 
 

Just because Persians couldn’t pronounce Sindhu and called our  land Hind ( and subsequently Hindustan) and Greeks called it the land of river Indus, India from that connotation, doesn’t mean that the indigenous people also rename our land. India represents what foreigners know it by , and why should we still refer to it by what they see us as? It is a subservient attitude and indicates our inferiority complex of our people from medieval times who got so rammed by invasions of foreigners , barbarians, colonialists .

 

Bharat is what we call our land and it is remembered in our collective memory in all regional languages. Since the regional languages are spoken by the people of the land, they know how to remember our history, heritage, and preserve it thus. How does words in a language gets longevity? By its usage and how popular it is , I don’t agree that just because other names are also used in scriptures, we should call it Madhyadesh or Aryavarta. They lost popularity in usage and hence was not preserved in the language, but Bharat was preserved in all regional languages of the indigenous people. Mostly because of the epic Mahabharata.
 

Just like Israel is the name of the land mentioned in their scriptures, the Old Testament (Torrah) and remembered in the language of the land, Hebrew, and this they made sure everybody called their land , Israel. If foreigners had called it Jewsland, they wouldn’t continue using it, even if it refers to the suffering of the Jews and those who survived the Holocaust. 
 

Just because Greeks called (allegedly) Chandragupta Maurya as Sandracuttos, doesn’t mean that we continue to remember him as that and not Chandragupta.

I agree that the name “India” represents the collective memory of our suffering that our people went through all the barbaric invasion, made us slaves of the colonial masters, we should not continue to remember us by that suffering. It is just a name how foreigners called our land as. But,  Bharat connects back to  our heritage, how our civilization and the indigenous people of the land proudly wanted to remember it as the land of the Bharatas, the Puru tribe that prevailed all other Haryanvi tribes mentioned in rigveda. But they made sure rituals and customs of even the vanquished tribes ( like Guru of the lost tribe - Vishvamitra) is continued in this land of the plural.

Edited March 22, 2020 by coffee_rules

[zen]

People (including frauds) who think that “suffering” should be highlighted to gain non existent sympathies of foreigners (also as if foreigners are superior so ppl have to beg for their sympathies) and the only way to remember such suffering is through a label (as if suffering is superfluous and that people should not work to connect with brighter aspects of one’s culture) are not worth engaging with, imo, unless to expose the motivation of such people to construct such points 

To advance their dumb agenda (which could include actually not highlighting what is of  cultural importance to the region and reducing it to just “suffering” to cater to foreigners) these people also try to misrepresent (unnecessarily drag in) other cultures/groups including “Jews” w/o even understanding the nuances of history 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2020 by zen

[Real McCoy]

This maybe not a popular view in this forum. Why change things just for the sake of change. There are a lot of things dependent on name alone. Chennai international airport still has the airport code as MAA. While its fancier to call other Indians Bharatiye nagarik, it doesn't make sense in normal life. We are still Indians. Why fix things which are not broken. The international currency designation will still be INR and not BHR. You don't want such a change to cause fluctuations in the currency do you. Like it or not, we were different kingdoms and united by the british empire. We also live in a global arena nowadays. So we have to go with the flow and not change things that doesn't need to be changed. In before @zen wants to be renamed wolfpack leader Maybe we can do something like Germans. Internationally called Germany, they themselves refer to it as Deutschland.

[zen]

1 minute ago, Real McCoy said:

Maybe we can do something like Germans. Internationally called Germany, they themselves refer to it as Deutschland.

Note that the country has two official names - Bharat and India. This is not a name change discussion but to make Bharat more predominant
 

 

 

[Real McCoy]

2 hours ago, zen said:

Note that the country has two official names - Bharat and India. This is not a name change discussion but to make Bharat more predominant
 

 

 

I know but your idea is unnecessary

[zen]

7 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

I know but your idea is unnecessary

Not for those who prefer Bharat to be used predominantly 

[zen]

3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Bharat was preserved in all regional languages of the indigenous people. Mostly because of the epic Mahabharata.

Yes, Bharat has cultural significance for the region .... At this point, IMO, basically three types of groups would oppose to "Bharat" being made the predominant official name:

 

a) Visualize the term as a Hindu name (Even though it is cultural and when in the region, a Bharat is likely to be the more common name than John or Dimitris - a reality)

b) Associate the term with Hindi (even though it is Sanskrit and its variants used in various regional languages) 

c) Like status quo for some trivial reasons

 

As discussed, a large group of people is already happily using the name whether in official capacity, regional languages, interactions, national anthem, and so on .... and would appreciate the name becoming predominant

 

 

Edited March 22, 2020 by zen

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

No, don’t agree with these lines, I am not sure what the context is, for you to say these, but Bharat is what we refer to as our land. As you have noted, it is coming from our voice,!the shruthi- vedas and from the smriti , our memory preserved in the various Puranas. It is the name of the land given to it by the original inhabitants or the indigenous people of the land.

 

the far more common reference in Puranas is jambhudwipa.

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:In most names given to landmarks like rivers, the indigenous names are still remembered rather than the new names of the language that occupies the land. Niagara, Mississippi, Seine, Danube, Ganga etc. They are not changed by how foreigners or occupiers know it by. 
 

Just because Persians couldn’t pronounce Sindhu and called our  land Hind ( and subsequently Hindustan) and Greeks called it the land of river Indus, India from that connotation, doesn’t mean that the indigenous people also rename our land. India represents what foreigners know it by , and why should we still refer to it by what they see us as? It is a subservient attitude and indicates our inferiority complex of our people from medieval times who got so rammed by invasions of foreigners , barbarians, colonialists .

the indigenous Indian sources used Hindustan far more commonly than bharat in all medieval literature, including Hindu.

 

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:In most names given to landmarks like rivers, the indigenous names are still remembered rather than the new names of the language that occupies the land. Niagara, Mississippi, Seine, Danube, Ganga etc. They are not changed by how foreigners or occupiers know it by. 

 

 

I agree that the name “India” represents the collective memory of our suffering that our people went through all the barbaric invasion, made us slaves of the colonial masters, we should not continue to remember us by that suffering. It is just a name how foreigners called our land as. But,  Bharat connects back to  our heritage, how our civilization and the indigenous people of the land proudly wanted to remember it as the land of the Bharatas, the Puru tribe that prevailed all other Haryanvi tribes mentioned in rigveda. But they made sure rituals and customs of even the vanquished tribes ( like Guru of the lost tribe - Vishvamitra) is continued in this land of the plural.

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.

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, zen said:

As mentioned, the need to make  “Bharat” more predominant (or even get rid of “India”) as it is more culturally aligned 

as I mentioned, it is not more culturally aligned, it’s just more modern prevalence aligned.

5 hours ago, zen said:

 

 

 

 

I do not mind you wasting time on writing the same dumb stuff, including why and what is relevant to  “people like you” (means zilch), which has been addressed in one form or other including by pointing at its irrelevance

your unsubstantiated opinion on calling it dumb stuff still remains unsubstantiated.

5 hours ago, zen said:

 

As for you being (or working to be) a part of VHP (as if it is relevant to the discussion), people can  work to be a part of any organization with the intention to commit fraud.  To call Gods silly to people who worship them only further highlights your mental instability 

There is no fraud because VHP isn’t just a religious organization ad they accept atheist Hindus in the ranks along savarkars original intent.