gslv Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Oh yes I just saw the writer name. The famous kancha . May be he should live in a muslim majority nation in modern times to see what a bigoted view that religion holds for others . The followers throw rose petals to Salman taseers killers.and to that they are not uneducated they are advocates in the court of law. Salman taseer just advocated for release of a woman who was persecuted for blasphemy. Yah kancha go to pak or Saudi and spare us.
Marco Polo Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 India is secular because of Hindu majority. Prove me wrong if you could, seculars. :D
The-Ramones Posted September 14, 2014 Author Posted September 14, 2014 "hindustan"/india is the mostly tolerant' date=' diverse country i have grown up in. It has its problems, but i am okay with it. I am not okay with the hindutvastan which the rss want to turn us into. They don't represent all the hindus, so don't frame it as a "hindus vs the rest" problem and give them legitimacy.[/quote'] That doesn't make sense to me. The term Hindustan is the essence or fulcrum of RSS ideology.
Number Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 That doesn't make sense to me. The term Hindustan is the essence or fulcrum of RSS ideology. Well, even proud muslims like Allama Iqbal have used it quite proudly. Why should we abandon the term just because RSS use/misuse it ?
The-Ramones Posted September 14, 2014 Author Posted September 14, 2014 Well, even proud muslims like Allama Iqbal have used it quite proudly. Why should we abandon the term just because RSS use/misuse it ? Sure, then why should RSS ideology be criticized if we have approval from none other Alama Iqbal, who was master mind of communalism and partition of India
Number Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 Sure' date= then why should RSS ideology be criticized if we have approval from none other Alama Iqbal, who was master mind of communalism and partition of India Great. You understood my point quite well.
hhunaeh Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 That doesn't make sense to me. The term Hindustan is the essence or fulcrum of RSS ideology. well my understanding of hindustan and rss's usage is obviously different. I don't want them hijacking the name and using it for their own cause. So there is no need to make this easy for them.
AmreekanDesi Posted September 14, 2014 Posted September 14, 2014 What I dont get is? That we have changed all the names like Bombay, Madras, Calcutta to get rid of the British tags and influence. So why is India still the official name? India is a word purely invented by the British. We should be officially called Hindustan or Bharat
Alph Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Bharat and India are our official names. Bharata is the original Sanskrit name of the Indian subcontinent. India is the anglicized form of Latin Indus, Greek Indos, Arabic al-Hind and Persian Hindu, all of which are variants of the Sanskrit word Sindhu (the river) and all of which would be appropriate for Pakistan than for us.
kubrickian Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 What I dont get is? That we have changed all the names like Bombay, Madras, Calcutta to get rid of the British tags and influence. So why is India still the official name? India is a word purely invented by the British. We should be officially called Hindustan or Bharat Bombay, Madras, Calcutta sounded a lot better if you ask me and they were globally known by those names too. They shouldn't have been changed.
Alph Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 In the case of Madras, the only thing english about the name is that it was the British abbreviation of Madraspatnam, the town north of Chennapatnam from which the name Chennai was derived from. The irony in the name change is, Madraspatnam predated Chennapatnam - which was the Telugu origin name given to the town built around the English settlement Fort St. George.
AmreekanDesi Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 Bombay' date=' Madras, Calcutta sounded a lot better if you ask me and they were globally known by those names too. They shouldn't have been changed.[/quote'] I think chennai and mumbai have caught up now. Thats not the issue i think eventually even india should be removed
Alph Posted September 17, 2014 Posted September 17, 2014 i think eventually even india should be removed Now what would be the need for that? It would be reasonable if these name changes are a matter of convenience, but if it's to erase British legacy; there is so much of it and changing these wont necessarily be beneficial.
AmreekanDesi Posted September 18, 2014 Posted September 18, 2014 Now what would be the need for that? It would be reasonable if these name changes are a matter of convenience' date=' but if it's to erase British legacy; there is so much of it and changing these wont necessarily be beneficial.[/quote'] why not? Im not a supporter of this policy anyways and prefer the old names but if we are going to change the names of cities then why not go the full mile and change name of India too and for once dont abandon policies in the middle? Honestly both sets of my grandparents still refer to us as hindustan and one side of the family is not even hindu. my maternal side are muslim but unfortunately i hardly know them but they do call it hindustan. Some of my friends say we should not call it Hindustan as it goes against secular traditions or whatnot but for me that argument is a joke.
Recommended Posts