Bharat to be the official name? - Page 13

Originally posted by: aparnauma

Language development is different from Script development.

The script that is Devnagari used for writing sanskrit did not develop till 500 /600 bc and around the same script for ancient Telugu and Tamil developed from Bhattiprolu Brahmi script. Here is how languages of the world have developed.

Currently the term Aryan is not used all thanks to Hitler. But they are renamed as Indoeuropeans who are pastoralists from Steppes near Caspian sea.

Linguistic families are used to study cultures As you can see Dravidans are separate entity altogether.

Since Vedas seem to be the standards for some groups of people in this country in Rigveda also it is mentioned that when Aryans encountered a few groups of people who they referred to as Anrayas and they wrote that they drove these anaryas called dasyus down south.

Yes there is no proof that Aryans destroyed Indus valley civilisation but there are enough proofs that they got into fights with people who are indigenous and they were also referred to as dark skinned people.

S there are people who did not agree with the pastoralist community and it is proof that there are two different types of people existed then. And even science confirms this. Most of the south Indians who speak Dravidan language are genetically different from the people who spoke Indoeuropean languages and of course East asian language people also came into picture around the same time.

Modern Indians who speak Dravidan languages live in the South of India are a mixture Indoiranian indo african hunter gatherers afroasiatic origin while the Indoeuropean group of language speaking modern Indians are a mixture of Steppe pastoralists and the indigenous Indians who are a mixture of above mentioned groups which formed AASI.

Indus valley people did not have the genes of Indoeuropean language speaking people instead their gene makeup is more similar to the gene makeup of Tamilans and people of Andhra south of River Krishna.

@red That means you don't know history of Dravidian movement. Andhras(Telugu speaking Dravidians) may not have had so much opposition towards the culture of North due to various reasons.

But have you ever spoken to a Tamilian or a Kannadiga? Why do you think people from south protest against Hindi imposition?Not having issues with North culture is not the same as accepting it as their own culture.

The ancient invaders tried to change the culture of indigenous people then came Muslims and lastly the colonialists. This land called India has been a composition of federal provinces since ancient times and it never had a homogenous culture. Imposition of Vedic ideas and Indoeuropean languages on all of India is not correct.

But there are no racial differences between Aryans and Dravidians. The differences were in language and probably religious practices of those times. There was no invasion. There were ongoing conflicts between groups who co-existed back then but no attempt to subjugate the other. And the texts from Vedas were taken out of context to imply Dasyus were a different set of dark-skinned people when actually they were referring to just forces of darkness. Many Aryans were also described as themselves being dark-skinned in the Rig Veda. Even today in our country we find people of varying shades in every part. There was no prejudice on the basis of skin color as per Vedas. There are also references of the title of “Aryan” being given and taken away from the Dasyus - so there’s no racial distinction between the two!

For reference:

https://www.opindia.com/2018/04/dr-ambedkar-rejected-aryan-invasion-theory-with-facts-and-logic/amp/

And its okay if you don’t like a Hindi/Sanskrit name. Personally I would be happy with any name and prefer one in any Indian language - Hindi,Sanskrit, Bengali, Telugu, Kannada, Tamil etc - since it comes from one of our own people and is not a reminder of colonial era!

The country can have only one name so it may upset people whose language wasn’t chosen. If the renaming happens with the intent to let go of colonial past - its good. If its done with the intent to establish the dominance or supremacy of one language/region over the other then it would be wrong!

Also as someone pointed out our money and resources shouldn’t be wasted on changing names!

Originally posted by: PhoenixRising

Sorry for jumping in, again!

But there are no racial differences between Aryans and Dravidians. The differences were in language and probably religious practices of those times. There was no invasion. There were ongoing conflicts between groups who co-existed back then but no attempt to subjugate the other. And the texts from Vedas were taken out of context to imply Dasyus were a different set of dark-skinned people when actually they were referring to just forces of darkness. Many Aryans were also described as themselves being dark-skinned in the Rig Veda. Even today in our country we find people of varying shades in every part. There was no prejudice on the basis of skin color as per Vedas. There are also references of the title of “Aryan” being given and taken away from the Dasyus - so there’s no racial distinction between the two!

For reference:

https://www.opindia.com/2018/04/dr-ambedkar-rejected-aryan-invasion-theory-with-facts-and-logic/amp/

And its okay if you don’t like a Hindi/Sanskrit name. Personally I would be happy with any name and prefer one in any Indian language - Hindi,Sanskrit, Bengali, Telugu, Kannada, Tamil etc - since it comes from one of our own people and is not a reminder of colonial era!

The country can have only one name so it may upset people whose language wasn’t chosen. If the renaming happens with the intent to let go of colonial past - its good. If its done with the intent to establish the dominance or supremacy of one language/region over the other then it would be wrong!

Also as someone pointed out our money and resources shouldn’t be wasted on changing names!

Country can be called by any no of names. Our constitution has already provided the facility to use India and Bharat.

What is the harm in continuing with both?India has a huge brand value that no other nation in this world has and it is unique. Indochina Indonesia West Indies not to mention Red Indians and above all Indian Ocean these names themselves tell a story about our history and the reputation we had in those times. These names stand testimony for the fact that we were Vishwagurus once upon a time. We were genuinely Vishwagurus at that time unlike in current times one man likes to own that term.

Indian Ocean was referred to as Hindu Mahasamudram why shy away from term Hindu? Mind you I don't even follow the religion that is called Hinduism but the name the name Hindu may be a misspelt word but it also encompasses not just religion but an entire civilisation both Vedic and Pre Vedic.

Hindu was never really solely connected to Hinduism but it encompassed a cultural ethno geographic entity. People in this land even when they changed their religion they did not change their culture.It is Hindutvavadis of current ruling elite who made Hinduism a dirty word so that people don't want to associate with it. But in reality it is Bharat which has a very narrow definition of who we are and what we are. India was not used by invaders it was used by the foreigners who did trading with. British did not coin that name. Infact Indus has a longer history than Bharat.

By naming it as Bharat they will be ignoring a huge number of indigenous cultural and religious groups whose origins are not in Vedic culture.

They will be making a huge mistake if they change it to Bharat.

Kannada is very much similar to Sanskrit

Originally posted by: aparnauma

Country can be called by any no of names. Our constitution has already provided the facility to use India and Bharat.

What is the harm in continuing with both?India has a huge brand value that no other nation in this world has and it is unique. Indochina Indonesia West Indies not to mention Red Indians and above all Indian Ocean these names themselves tell a story about our history and the reputation we had in those times. These names stand testimony for the fact that we were Vishwagurus once upon a time. We were genuinely Vishwagurus at that time unlike in current times one man likes to own that term.

Indian Ocean was referred to as Hindu Mahasamudram why shy away from term Hindu? Mind you I don't even follow the religion that is called Hinduism but the name the name Hindu may be a misspelt word but it also encompasses not just religion but an entire civilisation both Vedic and Pre Vedic.

Hindu was never really solely connected to Hinduism but it encompassed a cultural ethno geographic entity. People in this land even when they changed their religion they did not change their culture.It is Hindutvavadis of current ruling elite who made Hinduism a dirty word so that people don't want to associate with it. But in reality it is Bharat which has a very narrow definition of who we are and what we are. India was not used by invaders it was used by the foreigners who did trading with. British did not coin that name. Infact Indus has a longer history than Bharat.

By naming it as Bharat they will be ignoring a huge number of indigenous cultural and religious groups whose origins are not in Vedic culture.

They will be making a huge mistake if they change it to Bharat.

And if India was derived from Indus civilization - it would seem that Pakistan also has a right to claim this name since it probably has larger proportion of the river’s length and the ancient civilization? Also, before independence India included present day Pakistan and Bangladesh too!

Our country’s heritage is not the name but our values - even with different religions, cultures and languages our ancestors came together to build a nation for all. Its not possible to always accommodate everyone’s choices but if the name change were to happen(although its not happening now)- it would be put to a vote - leaders from all parts of the country would decide - I don’t think those from non-Vedic regions/cultures would be excluded! So if chosen - it would be the name that most would like.

In my opinion, the cultural heritage or a tribe or state would be ignored if lets say one renames a tribe from Kerala with a Punjabi name or rename Tamil Nadu with a Bengali or Hindi name! No one is taking away their language or identities or culture from them.

Originally posted by: Kyahikahoon

Kannada is very much similar to Sanskrit

There is no doubt in the fact that bharat is the original word that was mentioned in the constitution.Let's see what our govt.will do.

I am not sure what this entire hullabaloo is about: the name of India to be renamed Bharat.

Our country can either be called Bharat or India, as per the constitution.

I think most people in India are filled with pride when they say, "Bharat Mata ki Jai."

I think no one says "India Mother Ki Jai" or "India Mata Ki Jai".

Bharat is mentioned in our national anthem.

India is the name usually used when we communicate in English, but when we communicate in regional languages, we always use Bharat.

The word bharata is referred to in our Puranas, describing Bharata as the land between the "sea in the south and the abode of snow in the north.

The word "bharat" also refers to the Bharata Tribe dating back to the Vedic era. If we analyse the Battle of the Ten Kings in history, the king of the Bharatas (tribe) and a coalition of tribes fought in the Battle of the Ten Kings. The Bharatas tribe won this war and thus the Kuru polity was established.

It was King Sudas who led this Bharata tribe to victory over others.

And all these tribes were unified after this victory, and the Rigveda was composed with the knowledge of all these tribes. The Rigveda is considered one of the oldest texts.

Based on this history, it means that the inhabitants of our subcontinent are descended from the unified Bharata Tribe.

India and Bharat can coexist. Many countries have two names, but I think we should be accepting of our roots and origins.

I like India but personally, I prefer Bharat, as this name is a representation of our origins and I would love to be called as Bharatiya

We can see both Bharat and India on all documents, and I would like to see that as it is.

Changing the name in documents from India to Bharat completely comes with its own cost and requires a lot of money. Since the constitution says Bharat, i.e., India, we can use both names.

I am against replacing the name of India with Bharat (just because this comes with a huge cost).

Since Both Bharat and India are mentioned in our documents , I want it to be the same way and hope nothing changes.

But I am supportive if the current government promotes the usage of Bharat more.

People arguing that the ruling government is a dictator or scared of the I.N.D.I. alliance:

First of all, the opposition shouldn't have used a word that is similar to the name of the country.

Secondly, I think the current government has taken some actions to decolonize things, like George V's statue was replaced by Netaji's statue. renaming the Rajpath to Kartavya Path, replacing the hymn played during Republic Day ("Abide with Me" was replaced with "Ae mere watan ke logon").

Probably promoting country's name as Bharat was just a part of decolonization and a symbol of the abandonment of the slavery mentality.

Thirdly, if all this is a political move, I think the ruling government is doing nothing against the constitution. If the opposition can name their alliance the I.N.D.I. alliance, the ruling party is just promoting the name of our country, which is well versed in our constitution.

However Neither the opposition party nor the ruling party are sane and innocent. Both are just playing politics on their own terms.

If people claim that the ruling party is scared of the opposition for promoting Bharat at this moment, then we should also call out that the opposition is scared of the ruling party. Hence, the entire opposition joined hands to fight against the ruling party. They joined hands because they know that as a standalone party, they cannot win against the ruling party, and thus named their alliance the I.N.D.I. alliance.

.

Why forums? Rename it as Bharat Sammelan

Originally posted by: SlatePencil

Why forums? Rename it as Bharat Sammelan

Awesome but is Vijay sir ready to change the name of our IF aka Bharat sammelan??

Apologize for jumping the gun but our passports too bears Bharat Ganarajya means Republic of India.

So why not??

This reminds me of the pratigya we used to recite in our assembly

I am writing in gujju

Bharat maro desh chhe . (India is my country)
Badha Bhartiya mara bhai behen chhe ( All Indians are my brother and sister) (except my hubby )