Hindustan???? - Page 5

Originally posted by: cuckoocutter

 

fm what i recall seein Mahabharat, i believe it refers to one the first Kings (?) of India who came up with the idea that a King shld be chosen on merit.. not necessarily passed down as family inheritance😊 Lord Ram's Bharat comes quite a bit after that

Edited by hindu4lyf - 14 years ago

I see conversation turning towards which came first - Mahabharat yug aur Ramayan yug.  Ramayan preceeds MB even though Ramayan's yug is called treta and MB's called dwaapar. Edited by Gauri_3 - 14 years ago

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

I see conversation turning towards which came first - Mahabharat yug aur Ramayan yug.  Ramayan preceeds MB even though Ramayan's yug is called treta and MB's called dwaapar.

 

Ram was elder to Lakshman in Ramayan where as in MB, Balram was elder to Krishna (Krishna being Ram in previous incarnation and Balram being Lakshman) and loved rubbing this in every now and then.  There are also three-four references of Ramayan made in MB but none of MB in Ramayan. 

 

Even though I believe the name of our Country was named after Hastinapur's Bharat - Ram's Bharat did precede MB's bharat.

thats what i was confused at after reading Lalita's commment.. cuz even during Ramayan.. India was referred to as Bharat..😛

Originally posted by: Meena1

thats what i was confused at after reading Lalita's commment.. cuz even during Ramayan.. India was referred to as Bharat..😛

Edited by Gauri_3 - 14 years ago

Originally posted by: hindu4lyf

The name Hindu was actually given to us by Muslims. The original name of our religion is Sanatana Dharma.

If the Muslims and Sikhs have no problem in calling the country Hindustan then why do Hindu's mind so much? :S

I still remember Javed Akhtar's words in II when there was an Independence day special and he was saying.."saare jahan se acha hindustan hamara". :) Infact a lot of non-Hindus refer to India nd Hindustan. I don't understand the meaning behind anyone wanting to change this name. After all, originally hundreds of thousands of years ago, India was indeed the Land of the Hindus.

We're all proud of India and it's secular background but at the same time I am equally proud of its roots.

Do you really think I'm not proud of India? Go and read the 'Desi are responsible for India's bad 'name' post and look at who posted the most comments. I'm just saying that Bharat is better because it is a proof of secularism in the world's most secular country. 'Hindustan' is a more like an oxymoron to India. And Hindustan doesn't represent the large populations of Christians, Muslims etc... in our country. I know that your deeply upset because your 'a hindu4lyf' but if you look at it from POV, you well see what I mean. You're the one whose creating all the hype and ruckus, not me. So, I would request you to not get so upset about this.😊

Originally posted by: Gauri_3

Meena, I don't recall our country being referred as Bharat anywhere through out Ramayan.  References are there for Ayodhya and many such other dynasties but whenever they referred to India region as a whole, they called it Arya-varta.

 

Bharat-varsha came into existence after King Bharat - son of Dushyant.  Rest, I will defer to LJ😆

LOL.. geeez.. i thought they did refer to India as Bharat..😕..😆..  thanks for clarification..  LJ, Gauri & Cucko..😛

Originally posted by: debayon

Do you really think I'm not proud of India? Go and read the 'Desi are responsible for India's bad 'name' post and look at who posted the most comments. I'm just saying that Bharat is better because it is a proof of secularism in the world's most secular country. 'Hindustan' is a more like an oxymoron to India. And Hindustan doesn't represent the large populations of Christians, Muslims etc... in our country. I know that your deeply upset because your 'a hindu4lyf' but if you look at it from POV, you well see what I mean. You're the one whose creating all the hype and ruckus, not me. So, I would request you to not get so upset about this.😊

Originally posted by: hindu4lyf

 

I didn't think my post would offend you so much espescially since it was a general post and not directed at any specific member. I never implied that you are not proud to be an India so I am sorry if you took my post the wrong way. If you read my post again then you would realise that I did say "We are all proud of India.."

My question to you is if people of other religions do not have a problem with calling India Hindustan then what is our problem? I refuse to believe that just because we call it Hindustan means that it doesn't represent the other religions. If this is the case then surely it would have been brought up and been made as a big issue? Just like the whole issue with people not wanting to sing Vande Mataram.

Anyway people call India whatever they want to. Some say Bharat, some say Hindustan, some say India. Let's imagine for a second that a ban is imposed on the useage of the word Hindustan-you seriously think that's gonna stop the common man from referring to their country as Hindustan? I doubt it.

 

And please, I ain't the one getting upset. I just think the thought of changing a countries name that has existed for so many years is completely unnecessary.

@ bold: Yes, that's very true. But don't you think that if you just look at the word 'Hindustan' and you have know background knowledge about the Mughals calling it Hindustan etc..., does it translate to the ;the land of the Hindus' in English?

Originally posted by: debayon

@ bold: Yes, that's very true. But don't you think that if you just look at the word 'Hindustan' and you have know background knowledge about the Mughals calling it Hindustan etc..., does it translate to the ;the land of the Hindus' in English?

^^ OK, I completely agree with you. India has certainly advanced drastically over the last 10 years and is now in the G20 list of countries. But at the same time, it has also upheld it's cultures and beliefs, which is also a good thing. But my point is te term does not equally represent the Muslims, Christians etc.. When your saying 'Hindustan', you mean the 'Land of the Hindus", which literally means that even though Christians, Muslims and people of other religions live on the subcontinent, the land still belongs to the Hindus. Is that fair? All I mean to say is that, the name is very religiously inclined and may offend non-Hindu people sooner or later.