Kangana says sanskrit should be our national language. - Page 9

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

i agree there were likely two cultures. Like there are a lot of cultures in India today- from the tribals to the others. In this context, note that culture is a term that encompasses a lot.  But how did this even become pertinent to proving AMT? In terms of racial make up, its not changed much across the subcontinent, all the purported "established" facts to genetics the AMT crowd has been claiming notwithstanding.

by the way, what is dravidian culture? burial? ancestor worship? 

i agree, we should celebrate differences. But not at the cost of making stuff up. And how about celebrating unity as Indians? is that possible, or nothing is possible unless you get your way?

You don't see Dravidians wanting to impose their culture across North of India. Why This desire to impose Aryan culture and languages on Dravidians? Why trying to pass off Aryan language culture and religion as the culture language of entire India? The moment they stop doing this everything will be peaceful and acceptance will come on it's own.

Originally posted by: aparnauma

You don't see Dravidians wanting to impose their culture across North of India. Why This desire to impose Aryan culture and languages on Dravidians? Why trying to pass off Aryan language culture and religion as the culture language of entire India? The moment they stop doing this everything will be peaceful and acceptance will come on it's own.

Countries that have progressed (germany, america, england, france, japan etc) have a common language. It helps imo integrate people, economies etc. Of course, people should have the ability to hold on to culture that's great, but i think one also needs to think more nationally. Agree too that imposition is not a god idea... but there has to be a way after 70 years of independence to find greater integration. Fragmented regions, castes, states, just lead to ghettoization and balkanization in the long run.

as for feeling underappreciated, on the contrary, I think some of the southern customs are appreciated up north. I am often told that the south is more tuned in to Indian customs and religion than the north. Makes me wonder if a lot of what some of you seem to be thinking is perhaps your own misunderstanding.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

Countries that have progressed (germany, america, england, france, japan etc) have a common language. It helps imo integrate people, economies etc. Of course, people should have the ability to hold on to culture that's great, but i think one also needs to think more nationally. Agree too that imposition is not a god idea... but there has to be a way after 70 years of independence to find greater integration. Fragmented regions, castes, states, just lead to ghettoization and balkanization in the long run.

as for feeling underappreciated, on the contrary, I think some of the southern customs are appreciated up north. I am often told that the south is more tuned in to Indian customs and religion than the north. Makes me wonder if a lot of what some of you seem to be thinking is perhaps your own misunderstanding.

Well then, do I have a solution for you.

As the oldest language still in use, adopt Tamil as the national language.

Problem solved.

Originally posted by: HearMeRoar

Well then, do I have a solution for you.

As the oldest language still in use, adopt Tamil as the national language.

Problem solved.

lol jury is out on it being the oldest, so how if we dont keep palming off stuff as if its established manna from heaven😆? And as long as we're still in a democracy, how about seeing which language is more preferred than others, even if thats a minority. Again, question is which is most preferred. We do like democracy, dont we?

by the way, what would you have us do? switch from BW movies to watching the regional films you been talking up? 😆

and while we are it, what dravidian religion are some folks talking about? Are we just making stuff up as we go along? 😆Culture i can understand. Even within a common race, there can be many cultures and sub cultures. But religion? Putting the question out there again.😆

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

Countries that have progressed (germany, america, england, france, japan etc) have a common language. It helps imo integrate people, economies etc. Of course, people should have the ability to hold on to culture that's great, but i think one also needs to think more nationally. Agree too that imposition is not a god idea... but there has to be a way after 70 years of independence to find greater integration. Fragmented regions, castes, states, just lead to ghettoization and balkanization in the long run.

as for feeling underappreciated, on the contrary, I think some of the southern customs are appreciated up north. I am often told that the south is more tuned in to Indian customs and religion than the north. Makes me wonder if a lot of what some of you seem to be thinking is perhaps your own misunderstanding.

How does one explain existence of temple for Ravan in Kerala? How can one explain consumption of Beef among Hindus in Kerala which is considered a sacrilege in many parts of North India? Why is Asura King Mahabali venerated in Kerala? So obviously there are differences. Co incidentally both were Shiv bhakts. While what Ravana did by kidnapping Sita is unpardonable he is still seen as a great figure among some parts of South India. So it cannot be said that no differences exist.

  Ghettoisation and balkanisation will be a  strong possibility if one culture  from one region is imposed on all other regions.

South India always had a live and let live policy and that's the reason why people belonging to so many different religions co- existed peacefully. In fact in the town where I live  a temple church and mosque have the same address all three are located side by side without any problems. People go to these worship places. 

People will not learn any language if it is imposed on them. The other point is they will learn a new language if there's a benefit in learning that language.

What benefit does Hindi or Sanskrit can offer? I am a south Indian who's fairly fluent in Hindi and another South Indian language besides my mother tongue. I don't see any benefit in learning Hindi language because it is of no use for me other than making Hindi language entertainment more accessible.

it’s pity that now major issues about our country are hindu muslim divide .. south north divide .. language divisions,  what to eat and what not to eat .. 🤪uff the priorities 

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

lol jury is out on it being the oldest, so how if we dont keep palming off stuff as if its established manna from heaven😆? And as long as we're still in a democracy, how about seeing which language is more preferred than others, even if thats a minority. Again, question is which is most preferred. We do like democracy, dont we?

by the way, what would you have us do? switch from BW movies to watching the regional films you been talking up? 😆

Tamil is the oldest language CURRENTLY in use. Jury has long agreed on it.😊

And btw, one of the agreements when the southern kingdoms agreed to join the union was re: language. Without it, there would've been no India.

Doesn't matter to us how many Hindi speakers there are.

Try imposing it by force, and you'll find yourself without the part south of the Vindhyas.

Oh... and yet another suggestion. Make English the national language if it's all about the economy and not at all about nativism. What's that? English is not an Indian language?😆 I thought the demand for Hindi as common language was all about practicality and economics. So Hindi as a language native to India shouldn’t matter, should it?

For practical purposes, English would work much better because almost all south Indians are taught English although they are comfortable with it to varying degrees. North East Indians, Bengalis, etc are also familiar with it. 

Treat language as a medium of communication and go for the practical by all means. 

But practicality doesn't mean leaving one group with an enormous advantage in everything concerning education and employment and dealing with the government.

Practicality doesn't mean you get to break the agreement when princely states *agreed* to join the union. Remember, they weren't knocking at the door, asking to join. It was an agreement between states. 

With re: Vedic religion. The Aryans started with Indra worship. In fact, Rig Veda calls Krishna an asur leader of the dark hordes.

Book 8, Hymn 96 :

Verse 13: “An Asur called Krishna lived on the banks of river Anshumati. He moved fast and travelled along with ten thousand armies. Indra located that shouting Asur using his intelligence and in the interest of humanity, destroyed his murderous armies.”

Verse 14: “Indra said, I have seen the Krishna Asur who roams around the caves on the banks of river Anshumati. He is stationed in water like the shining sun. O’ Maruts, the fulfiller of wishes, I want you for the battle, you kill him in battle.”

Verse 15: “Fast-moving Krishna Asur lived on the banks of river Anshumati. He was shining. Indra slew the black, invading armies with the help of Vrihaspati.”

Verse 17: “O’ wielder of the bolt, Indra, you have done this. As a matchless warrior, you destroyed the power of Krishna using your bolt. With your weapons, for the welfare of the people, you killed Krishna Asur by lowering your face and you obtained cows from the enemy using your power.”

Subsequently, when the invaders/migrants interbred with the original inhabitants, they started adopting the traditions and practices. 

So to say Vedic religion is being imposed would be inaccurate when neither Vishnu worship nor Shiva worship came from the Aryans.

But Aryanization is certainly there. 

Krishna might have looked like this:

But he is portrayed by fair-skinned Farex babies: