surajmal Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 1 minute ago, Muloghonto said: Devised by modern Indians. Show us which historical text from India uses the term 'bharata' from the thousands of years following Rig Veda, until the 19th century. I am not going to google for you. Do it urself, or sit on a dynamite.
Muloghonto Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 10 minutes ago, surajmal said: Bharat Varsha is in Puranas. Why should we care what the Goras caled (calls) us? Referring to specifically 'Children and descendants of Bharata'. Also not used in context of all of Indian subcontinent. Also far less used than Madhyadesha/Uttara-Patha, Kalinga, etc. We should care for what others call us, precisely for the same reason Germans arnt trying to change 'Germany' in English & international relations to 'Deutchland' or such. Smacks of inferiority complex from chaddis.
surajmal Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 15 minutes ago, BeautifulGame said: I prefer being called an Indian not a Bharathi. Lot more cooler. It's Bharatiya
beetle Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 There are more Important things to be done in this country . Adi_91, BeautifulGame and sarcastic 3
someone Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: We also did not refer to us as Bharat. What others refer to us is relevant. Because the name of a country is primarily for international consumption. I don't see Germans getting bent out of shape for not being called 'Deutchland' or Japan not being called 'Nippon'. Or Egypt being called Misr. Bharat means land/domain/descendants of Bharata. Nothing more or less. And isn't that the point, there is no sentiment nor value with "India" for us. Yet, there is some history, sentiment and value with Bharat. And you are wrong, Bharat has a Sanskrit meaning with Bha & Rat together meaning devotion to light...India doesn't have any such meaning for us.
Muloghonto Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 9 minutes ago, surajmal said: I am not going to google for you. Do it urself, or sit on a dynamite. then don't make ignorant claims straight out of your rear end.
surajmal Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: then don't make ignorant claims straight out of your rear end. It's cute u think u have a say.
Muloghonto Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 3 minutes ago, someone said: And isn't that the point, there is no sentiment nor value with "India" for us. Yet, there is some history, sentiment and value with Bharat. And you are wrong, Bharat has a Sanskrit meaning with Bha & Rat together meaning devotion to light...India doesn't have any such meaning for us. What it CAN mean in Sanskrit is irrelevant to how the word came to use or what it means. Its been specifically used in context of 'Children of Bharata', the mythic king, along with his Kula-naming. As i said, this is nothing more than inferiority complex. Plenty of nations exist who's names are completely different in their mother tongues but they are not getting bent out of shape against the English term. English is the first and only true global language. And there is nothing to be gained by trying to change it. So get on with the program.
Muloghonto Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 1 minute ago, surajmal said: It's cute u think u have a say. No more/less than you do, chaddi. But evidence is not big for Chaddis, i realize. Just making ignorant claims and revisionist history you've learnt so well from your missionary masters.
surajmal Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 12 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: No more/less than you do, chaddi. But evidence is not big for Chaddis, i realize. Just making ignorant claims and revisionist history you've learnt so well from your missionary masters. Why dont you go play with other uncles?
someone Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: What it CAN mean in Sanskrit is irrelevant to how the word came to use or what it means. Its been specifically used in context of 'Children of Bharata', the mythic king, along with his Kula-naming. As i said, this is nothing more than inferiority complex. Plenty of nations exist who's names are completely different in their mother tongues but they are not getting bent out of shape against the English term. English is the first and only true global language. And there is nothing to be gained by trying to change it. So get on with the program. We don't gain anything by changing it officially now. But the question is why did make India from Bharat? What was the need to have a westernized or so called secular name at that time? It was case of inferior complex. And today, unofficial, Bharat is used more among ourselves and thus, it makes no sense to discontinue it either.
Muloghonto Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 1 minute ago, surajmal said: Why dont you go play with other uncles? take your own advice. You still seem to struggle with the concept of authenticity. No need to get bent out of shape because i called you out on spreading BS with no evidence.
Muloghonto Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 Just now, someone said: We don't gain anything by changing it officially now. But the question is why did make India from Bharat? What was the need to have a westernized or so called secular name at that time? It was case of inferior complex. And today, unofficial, Bharat is used more among ourselves and thus, it makes no sense to discontinue it either. 1. We were NEVER bharat to begin with as a consensus. We don't find Bharat in any Buddhist or Jain texts, even in Hindu texts it is a very rare reference- usually in contex of race/ethnicity. Hence almost all references in history are 'children of Bharata'. We simply went with what was prevalent for 2000+ years. 2. No problem keeping it Bharat in Hindi and India in English. Just like Germany in English and Deutchland in German. Tendu_10 and Tibarn 1 1
Mariyam Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 (edited) @Muloghonto I hate being pedantic; but its Deutschland. Throw in as many harsh sounding consonants next to each other and voilà, you speak German. Edited June 24, 2017 by Mariyam Muloghonto, sarcastic and Tendu_10 3
someone Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: 1. We were NEVER bharat to begin with as a consensus. We don't find Bharat in any Buddhist or Jain texts, even in Hindu texts it is a very rare reference- usually in contex of race/ethnicity. Hence almost all references in history are 'children of Bharata'. We simply went with what was prevalent for 2000+ years. 2. No problem keeping it Bharat in Hindi and India in English. Just like Germany in English and Deutchland in German. Did we find India in any Buddhist or Jain or Hindu texts? Where was that consensus in India? "Bharat" the name was mentioned enough in our history that it should have been the official name after our independence. zen 1
Muloghonto Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 Just now, someone said: Did we find India in any Buddhist or Jain or Hindu texts? Where was that consensus in India? "Bharat" the name was mentioned enough in our history that it should have been the official name after our independence. 1. No, it is not mentioned 'enough'. For e.g., not a single King's edict mentions the word. It only finds mention in a couple of Puranas, that too, very rarely and only in context of 'Children of Bharata'. 2. It is our official name. In Hindi. In English, its India. Just like its Japan in English and Nippon/Nihon in Japanese, Germany in English, Deutschland in German, etc. I don't see why we need to get rid of the official English term.
Tibarn Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 Kala angrez is talking about others having missionary masters and accusing others of spreading BS with no evidence It's about time for him to plagiarize Wikipedia again. zen 1
Muloghonto Posted June 24, 2017 Posted June 24, 2017 6 minutes ago, Tibarn said: Kala angrez is talking about others having missionary masters and accusing others of spreading BS with no evidence It's about time for him to plagiarize Wikipedia again. Looks like your 2-bit degree didnt teach you the definition of plagiarism. One cannot plagiarize an encyclopedia, moron, no more than one can 'plagiarize' a dictionary or a thesaurus. And given that Hinduvta is nothing more than Islamification of Hinduism on Missionary principles, calling out hinduva revisionists who have no data is valid.
zen Posted June 24, 2017 Author Posted June 24, 2017 1 hour ago, StriKe said: India - Since 2000+ years ago Bharat - Formed during 1950 Constitutionally, Ind since 1947, and Bharat since 1950 Historically, both names are ancient, i.e. Bharat Varsha for e.g.
Recommended Posts