Deleted_User_1 Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 I would like India to be renamed "The Republic next to Pakistan" sarcastic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 1 minute ago, zen said: Should be Bharat as discussed 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. 1 minute ago, zen said: 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 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’. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted March 20, 2020 Author Share Posted March 20, 2020 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: 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’. Again this topic is not about renaming the country. But because the country has two official names (already selected), using Bharat, which is more aligned with the region's culture - a Sanskrit word, predominantly The sick thinking of many of trying to gain non-existent sympathies (and bakshish) from foreigners, along with inappropriate parallels drawn with Jews (trying to use them as well w/o understanding the nuances), has been discussed. Edited March 20, 2020 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 50 minutes ago, zen said: Again this topic is not about renaming the country. But because the country has two official names (already selected), using Bharat, which is more aligned with the region's culture - a Sanskrit word, predominantly I think the name India is more aligned to the regions history and identity. 50 minutes ago, zen said: The sick thinking of many of trying to gain non-existent sympathies (and bakshish) from foreigners, along with inappropriate parallels drawn with Jews (trying to use them as well w/o understanding the nuances), has been discussed. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted March 20, 2020 Author Share Posted March 20, 2020 Just now, Muloghonto said: I think the name India is more aligned to the regions history and identity. Everyone knows that Bharat is from Sanskrit Quote 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 You are continuing to display your lack of understanding of Jewish history and the difference in nuances b/w "Indian" and "Jew" .... while trying to oppose the use of Bharat (for different reasons), while hiding behind the silly argument As I said before, I do not appreciate people with your kind of mentality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 5 minutes ago, zen said: Everyone knows that Bharat is from Sanskrit And the name India has been used far more frequently in written history and is far more embedded in our history. 5 minutes ago, zen said: You are continuing to display your lack of understanding of Jewish history and the difference in nuances b/w "Indian" and "Jew" .... while trying to oppose the use of Bharat (for different reasons), while hiding behind the silly argument 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. 5 minutes ago, zen said: As I said before, I do not appreciate people with your kind of mentality 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted March 20, 2020 Author Share Posted March 20, 2020 1 minute ago, Muloghonto said: And the name India has been used far more frequently in written history and is far more embedded in our history. The point is about using Bharat, the name is more aligned with the region's culture .... Your opposition to the name is precisely because it is more aligned with the region's culture and therefore folks like you seek refuge in terms like "India" Quote 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. I am not here to do your homework or spoon feed you. Certain nuances can be grasped from the terms "Indian" and "Jew" itself Quote 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 Another made up point as nothing in history has been erased .... For a variety of reasons, regions can prefer another name. Examples include Kolkatta (Calcutta), Mumbai (Bombai), Chennai (Madras), Sri Lanka (Ceylon), and so on, further highlighting the silliness of your points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted March 20, 2020 Share Posted March 20, 2020 14 minutes ago, zen said: The point is about using Bharat, the name is more aligned with the region's culture .... Your opposition to the name is precisely because it is more aligned with the region's culture and therefore folks like you seek refuge in terms like "India" 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. 14 minutes ago, zen said: I am not here to do your homework or spoon feed you. Certain nuances can be grasped from the terms "Indian" and "Jew" itself 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. 14 minutes ago, zen said: Another made up point as nothing in history has been erased .... Erasing a name erases the history associated with it. This is why India should be the foremost identity. 14 minutes ago, zen said: For a variety of reasons, regions can prefer another name. Examples include Kolkatta (Calcutta), Mumbai (Bombai), Chennai (Madras), Sri Lanka (Ceylon), and so on, further highlighting the silliness of your points 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. sarcastic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted March 21, 2020 Author Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: 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. As already discussed we are discussing the official names of the country. Bharat is one of the two official names. We are not discussing renaming the country or which names are more culturally aligned than these two names. Just that Bharat is more aligned with the culture esp. since it stems from Sanskrit than "India", the other name Your inclination towards "foreign related history" has already been discussed .... As far as the name "Bharat" is concerned, I just have to quote the name "Mahabharat" (Great Bharat) for those who understand what that means (not people like you) Quote 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. The lack of parallels are in illustrated in the names themselves - "Indians" and "Jews" .... further anyone who knows history can see the nuances .... But I have no issues if you continue to make such silly points Quote 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. As demonstrated by various examples that it is not the case .... Yes, those who a) do not want the name Bharat as it is more aligned with the country's culture and b) inclined to serve the goals of foreigners may want to see that way .... Both names are official identity of the country, making Bharat the predominant name does not change the country's history (if you seriously believe that or further do not believe that but think somehow people will swallow that then you have more serious problems than worrying about the name Bharat) Quote 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. I know the type of people who do not prefer "Bharat" .... some concerns of their mentality has been raised .... these folks are potentially one of the reasons why foreign powers have subjugated the region and of course, the below: Jana Gana Mana Rabindranath Tagore जनगणमन अधिनायक जय हे भारत भाग्य विधाता पंजाब सिन्ध गुजरात मराठा द्राविड़ उत्कल बंग विन्ध्य हिमाचल यमुना गंगा उच्छलजलधितरंग तव शुभ नामे जागे तव शुभ आशिष मांगे गाहे तव… Edited March 21, 2020 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, zen said: As already discussed we are discussing the official names of the country. Bharat is one of the two official names. We are not discussing renaming the country or which names are more culturally aligned than these two names. Just that Bharat is more aligned with the culture esp. since it stems from Sanskrit than "India", the other name India is more aligned to our written and known history than Bharat. History is part of culture. 6 minutes ago, zen said: Your inclination towards "foreign related history" has already been discussed .... 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. 6 minutes ago, zen said: As far as the name "Bharat" is concerned, I just have to quote the name "Mahabharat" (Great Bharat) for those who understand what that means (not people like you) Yes. It means it’s a term that got used here and there by Hindus and a distant second to Hindustan. 6 minutes ago, zen said: The lack of parallels are in illustrated in the names themselves - "Indians" and "Jews" .... further anyone who knows history can see the nuances .... But I have no issues if you continue to make such silly points 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. 6 minutes ago, zen said: As demonstrated by various examples that it is not the case .... Only thing you demonstrated is you don’t even understand the difference between an alliteration and a nomenclature change. 6 minutes ago, zen said: Yes, those who do not want the name Bharat as it is more aligned with the country's culture and inclined to serve the goals of foreigners may want to see that way .... 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. 6 minutes ago, zen said: Both names are official names of the country, making Bharat the predominant name does not change the country's history It devalues the history associated with India as the word. We are republic of India first, Bharat second- as on our passports. 6 minutes ago, zen said: I know the type of people who do not prefer "Bharat" .... some of the concerns of their mentality has been raised .... these folks are one of the reasons why foreign powers have subjugated the region for so many years .... and of course, the below: 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. 6 minutes ago, zen said: Jana Gana Mana Rabindranath Tagore जनगणमन अधिनायक जय हे भारत भाग्य विधाता पंजाब सिन्ध गुजरात मराठा द्राविड़ उत्कल बंग विन्ध्य हिमाचल यमुना गंगा उच्छलजलधितरंग तव शुभ नामे जागे तव शुभ आशिष मांगे गाहे तव… 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. sarcastic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted March 21, 2020 Author Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: India is more aligned to our written and known history than Bharat. History is part of culture. Per the foreigners, I guess I said that Bharat, which is chosen as the official name, is more aligned with the country's culture. Not that it has to be some kind of the oldest name for the region Anyways "Mahabharat", people know how old that is Quote 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. In your post itself, you will read how everything is said from the foreign perspective Quote Yes. It means it’s a term that got used here and there by Hindus and a distant second to Hindustan. so it has a history, thank you ..... and as already mentioned, Hindustan is not being discussed. Unless you are advocasting that the country use Hindustan to be the official name too Quote 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. Nothing has been spelt out expect that you highlighted your belief that "Jews keep the term Jews, who are also called something else, to remember or more precisely for foreigners to remember their suffering. Because people in "India" or Africa suffered, and if suffering and suffered are common in all these sentences, there is a parallel (and similarities in history) as at the end of the day, the idea of all communities is to gain non-existent sympathies from foreigners" .... and the folly of expecting others to even bother to refute such hogwash Quote 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. People want the more culturally aligned name Bharat .... Tomorrow, the country could even coin a brand new term which could be derived from Sanskrit for e.g. and be culturally significant Quote 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. This is getting more hilarious than what I bargained for .... the above further proves, you have no idea about history Quote 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. May be jana gana is a foreign national anthem for you but the point was the importance of Bharat in our culture through its use in the national anthem by Tagore (but people like you may even shy away from the anthem as it does not have "India" in it) .... what foreigners call the country is irrelevant .... the thread is on the country calling itself Bharat predominantly now at every stage Edited March 21, 2020 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 1 hour ago, zen said: Per the foreigners, I guess 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. 1 hour ago, zen said: I said that Bharat, which is chosen as the official name, is more aligned with the country's culture. Not that it has to be some kind of the oldest name for the region 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. 1 hour ago, zen said: Anyways "Mahabharat", people know how old that is 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. 1 hour ago, zen said: In your post itself, you will read how everything is said from the foreign perspective 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. 1 hour ago, zen said: so it has a history, thank you ..... and as already mentioned, Hindustan is not being discussed. Unless you are advocasting that the country use Hindustan to be the official name too 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. 1 hour ago, zen said: Nothing has been spelt out expect that you highlighted your belief that "Jews keep the term Jews, who are also called something else, to remember or more precisely for foreigners to remember their suffering. Because people in "India" or Africa suffered, and if suffering and suffered are common in all these sentences, there is a parallel (and similarities in history) as at the end of the day, the idea of all communities is to gain non-existent sympathies from foreigners" .... and the folly of expecting others to even bother to refute such hogwash Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it valid. Fact remains the Jewish analogy has not been addressed by you re nomenclature. 1 hour ago, zen said: People want the more culturally aligned name Bharat .... Tomorrow, the country could even coin a brand new term which could be derived from Sanskrit for e.g. and be culturally significant 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. 1 hour ago, zen said: This is getting more hilarious than what I bargained for .... the above further proves, you have no idea about history 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. 1 hour ago, zen said: May be jana gana is a foreign national anthem for you but the point was the importance of Bharat in our culture through its use in the national anthem by Tagore (but people like you may even shy away from the anthem as it does not have "India" in it) .... what foreigners call the country is irrelevant .... the thread is on the country calling itself Bharat predominantly now at every stage 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted March 21, 2020 Author Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: 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. So? It does not matter what the history of "India" is .... The point is that "Bharat" is more aligned with the country's culture esp. since it is in Sanskrit .... And in terms of its usage, there is an example of Mahabharat Quote 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. Ok .... I hope that you are not implying that Iraq became a dictatorship because of a name change. And a dictator in Iraq changing its (or not) name has no significance to what this country does .... and when Bharat and India are two official names of the country (so no name is being changed) .... there is not point in stating the above and probably an attempt to draw irrelevant parallels Quote 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. Your argument is based on "foreigners know the country as "India" .... and changing its name would magically erase the "suffering" from foreigner's mind (as if they care in the first place) .... while locals can use whatever they want" So again, not interested in such points Quote 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. Could be but here we are only discussing the two official names .... You are free to start a thread on what other names the country could consider Quote Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it valid. Fact remains the Jewish analogy has not been addressed by you re nomenclature. Therefore, you should not be repeating it .... and learn some history as well .... the point you need to understand is that no one (not accounting for those with a beggar mentality) to promote any suffering to gain non-existent sympathies from foreigners in the first place so your attempt to draw parallels (either with Jews or someone else) is point less "Saddam, Jews, Indians, .... " Quote 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. And your foreign inclined motivation has been documented Quote 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. Well if you need a name to remember such "suffering", it shows how much you actually care .... the above is not even a point Quote 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. Bharat should become predominant .... And again the folly of equating "Jews" with "Indians" Edited March 21, 2020 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 15 hours ago, zen said: So? It does not matter what the history of "India" is .... I rest my case. It’s because of people like you indians don’t care about history. 15 hours ago, zen said: The point is that "Bharat" is more aligned with the country's culture esp. since it is in Sanskrit .... And in terms of its usage, there is an example of Mahabharat nope. History is also culture. 15 hours ago, zen said: 15 hours ago, zen said: Your argument is based on "foreigners know the country as "India" .... and changing its name would magically erase the "suffering" from foreigner's mind (as if they care in the first place) .... while locals can use whatever they want" it would be erasure from our minds. Whether they care or not is irrelevant to whether we should forget or not. Just like jews. 15 hours ago, zen said: Could be but here we are only discussing the two official names .... You are free to start a thread on what other names the country could consider that’s deflection. Point is, bharat is a name of lesser value than Hindustan or India. 15 hours ago, zen said: Therefore, you should not be repeating it .... and learn some history as well .... the point you need to understand is that no one (not accounting for those with a beggar mentality) to promote any suffering to gain non-existent sympathies from foreigners in the first place so your attempt to draw parallels (either with Jews or someone else) is point less 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. 15 hours ago, zen said: "Saddam, Jews, Indians, .... And your foreign inclined motivation has been documented Your inclination to erase indian history for silly name game is showing. 15 hours ago, zen said: Well if you need a name to remember such "suffering", it shows how much you actually care .... the above is not even a point I care more than the one trying to erase or devalue the name associated with the suffering. 15 hours ago, zen said: Bharat should become predominant .... And again the folly of equating "Jews" with "Indians" 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted March 21, 2020 Author Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) @Muloghonto skimmed through your post and I don't think you know what you are typing. As observed in past, your goal appears to be to just type in a random response to advance an argument While your attempts to try to engage with me are appreciated (on threads started by me and by replying to my posts), I do not see you as a genuine poster (as a number of times various posters have given you proof contrary to what you have posted but you respond to them by typing random nonsense as usual). I have no interest in the opinion of people like you .... So to not waste my time further on you, let me summarize your key points: a) "India" should be used predominantly as it has some kind of history (and then you probably want to get into an unnecessary exercise where we post relevant historical data. Per your imagination, the name with the oldest timeline does well ) My point: Who cares about timelines? Both Bharat and India are official names. Bharat should be used predominantly as it is culturally more aligned (and also referenced through significant works such as Mahabharata) b) "Hindustan" is more significant than Bharat My point: Off topic. The two official names as selected by the government are being discussed here. This is not a topic on what should be the new name for India or by what additional name India should consider to be "official" .... A newly coined name too could have cultural significance c) "India" should be used because it signifies suffering to foreigners (in the country, Bharat can be used w/o issues). Like Jews use Jews to highlight their suffering to others (you read my post on Hindus and Jews on some other thread and brought the analogy to this thread w/o understanding the nuances and application to this topic - a case of a crow trying to act like a crane) My point: Who cares about highlighting suffering to gain non existent sympathies from foreigners who do not care in the first place. Foreigners (former colonial/imperial powers) care more about what happened to them in the two world wars than what they did to their colonies. There is not point in assuming that Jews use Jews to highlight their suffering to foreigners as they had different set of challenges (Whoever you try to represent whether Jews or anyone, it may actually be degrading to them) d) A subpoint of the above "c" - "Jews highlight Jews to gain sympathies and recall their history. And since "Indians" are reltively better known as "Indians" abroad, we should do what Jews do My point: First, no one cares about highlighting the suffering to gain non existent sympathies from foreigners (and display a certain type of mentality) - point c .... Even the parallels drawn are are not accurate as there are nuances b/w the two. Note that because of Jewish diaspora, Jews have lived all over the globe since centuries e) No my parallels are good (again wants to go into an irrelevant exercise of posting some history related stuff and so on and also learn more on the subject) My point: Irrelevant stuff .... do your own homework.... points c and d f) A dictator changed the name (Arabic) of his country (some random comment and attempt to draw a parallel) My point: Who cares about your random exercise to draw another irrelevant parallel? A dictator changing the name of his country has no relevance to this country doing the same and when the country already has two official names (so no name change is being done). The real issue? - Bharat is like a Hindu name -> A country with a culture that we have will have a name like Bharat not Switzerland, which has a different culture .... Respect that! Edited March 21, 2020 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 Just now, zen said: @Muloghonto skimmed through your post and I don't think you know what you are typing. you goal appears to be to just type in a random response 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. Just now, zen said: While your attempts to try to engage with me are appreciated (on threads started by me and by replying to my posts), I do not see you as a genuine poster (as a number of times various posters have given you proof contrary to what you have posted but you respond to them by typing nonsense as usual). I have no interest in why people like you like "India" or do not like it So you only care about manmani and not take into consideration what people want. Got it. Just now, zen said: So to not waste my time further on you, let me summarize your key points: a) "India" should be used predominantly as it has some kind of history (and then you probably want to get into an unnecessary exercise where we post relevant historical data. the name with the oldest timeline does well ) The name with the most prevalence in history is India. This is indisputable. Just now, zen said: My point: Who cares about timelines? Both Bharat and India are official names. Bharat should be used predominantly as it is culturally more aligned (and also referenced through significant works such as Mahabharata) 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. Just now, zen said: b) "Hindustan" is more significant than Bharat My point: Off topic. The two official names as selected by the government are being discussed here. This is not a topic on what should be the new name for India or by what additional name India should consider to be "official" It is to demonstrate that Bharat is an obscure term compared to Hindustan or India. Just now, zen said: c) "India" should be used because it signifies suffering to foreigners (in the country, Bharat can be used w/ issues). Like Jews use Jews to highlight their suffering to others (read my post on Hindus and Jews on some other thread and brought the analogy to this thread w/o understanding the nuances and application to this topic) My point: Who cares about highlighting suffering to gain non existent sympathies from foreigners who do not care in the first place. Foreigners (former colonial/imperial powers) care more about what happened to them in the two world wars than what they did to their colonies. There is not point in assuming that Jews use Jews to highlight their suffering to foreigners as they had different set of challenges 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. Just now, zen said: d) A subpoint of the above "c" - "Jews highlight Jews to gain sympathies and recall their history. And since "Indians" are better known as "Indians" abroad, we should do what Jews do My point: First, no one cares about highlighting the suffering to gain non existent sympathies from foreigners (and display a certain type of mentality) - point c .... Even the parallels drawn are are not accurate as there are nuances b/w the two. Note that because of Jewish diaspora, Jews have lived all over the globe since centuries Global diaspora or local diaspora is irrelevant to how a marginalized community uses nomenclature. Just now, zen said: e) No my parallels are good (again wants to go into an irrelevant exercise of posting some history related stuff and so on and also learn more on the subject) My point: Irrelevant stuff .... do your own homework.... points c and d 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. Just now, zen said: f) A dictator changed the name (Arabic) of his country (some random comment and attempt to draw a parallel) My point: Who cares about your random exercise to draw another irrelevant parallel? A dictator changing the name of his country has no relevance to this country doing the same and when the country already has two official names (so no name change is being done). The real issue? - Bharat is like a Hindu name -> A country with a culture that we have will have a name like Bharat not Switzerland, which has a different culture .... Respect that .... Apart from the above, if you have anything else to say, let me know. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted March 21, 2020 Author Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: 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 More nonsense as expected .... No one cares about why you think "India" should be used (because we know what people like you think) and your random parallels (useful for comic relief) .... Only thing of importance is showing the "certain type of mentality" that would post like what you post here, and you have served that purpose by continuing to post on expected lines .... Thank you for making it so easy! Edited March 21, 2020 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 1 minute ago, zen said: More nonsense as expected .... No one cares about why you think "India" should be used (because we know what people like you think) Well no one cares then why you think India should have less purchase than Bharat. 1 minute ago, zen said: and your random parallels (useful for comic relief) .... That’s all you can say to parallels you can’t refute. 1 minute ago, zen said: Only thing of importance is showing the "certain type of mentality" that would post like what you post here, and you have served that purpose by continuing to post on expected lines .... Thank you for making it so easy! Yes the type of mentality that doesn’t forget their history ever, which is lacking amongst our people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted March 21, 2020 Author Share Posted March 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: 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. Another example of a random post .... Probable response from you - turn my post to - "Your's is a random post" For an old guy, this is childish stuff from you .... Grow up .... or at least learn some history first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, zen said: Another example of a random post .... Probable response from you - turn my post to - "Your's is a random post" For an old guy, this is childish stuff from you .... Grow up .... or at least learn some history first 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. Edited March 21, 2020 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts