After Allahabad, Hindu right wants Muzaffarnagar renamed Laxminagar

[SuvarnaTeja]

in that case, 10000 years ago it was probably called X, 5000 years it was called Y, 3000 years ago the civilisation was called Z, great logic!

It is always good to have more options.

 

[TMA]

India, Hindustan & Bharat are already official names of India. There is nothing to rename.

But Dehli should be renamed as Hastinapur.

Hindustan is the name that foreign Muslims gave to the Subcontinent of India just like the foreign Mughals gave names to cities in Bharat....So to be consistent with this a proud Bharati ought to refrain from names given by foreigners. ...right???

Hindi is a foreign word initially used by Muslims to refer to the language of North Bharat....perhaps you should also officially change this name????

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Hindustan is the name that foreign Muslims gave to the Subcontinent of India just like the foreign Mughals gave names to cities in Bharat....So to be consistent with this a proud Bharati ought to refrain from names given by foreigners. ...right???

Hindi is a foreign word initially used by Muslims to refer to the language of North Bharat....perhaps you should also officially change this name????

I do not consider Mughals as foreigners. India is a name given by Europeans but we are still using it in spite of being a British colony.

Hindi is a foreign word initially used by Muslims to refer to the language of North Bharat....perhaps you should also officially change this name????

I do not have any problem if someone changes the name Hindi to Hindustani but it may be confusing at the North Indian music is called by that name already.

 

[TMA]

I do not consider Mughals as foreigners. India is a name given by Europeans but we are still using it in spite of being a British colony.



I do not have any problem if someone changes the name Hindi to Hindustani but it may be confusing at the North Indian music is called by that name already.

OK but why change the names of cities then unless you disagree with the government.

My question is really for those Bharatis who consider the Muslim dynasties as foreign.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

OK but why change the names of cities then unless you disagree with the government.

My question is really for those Bharatis who consider the Muslim dynasties as foreign.

I think it is less to do with ethnicity and more to do with religion.

For example, Mughals were not very religious at all. They even considered adopting Buddhism as their state religion before adopting Islam. Akbar even created his own religion.

The problem really arose during the period of Aurangazeb

1) His act of killing Dara in the succession battle did not go well with the Hindus as Dara was considered as a symbol of religious harmony as he studied and translated Vedas to Persian

2) Aurangazeb rule was under immense financial stress which meant that he had to borrow money from the out side and this meant his had to implement strict Islamic laws which included banning music, re-implementing jizya on non-Muslims etc.

Eventually these steps resulted in the downfall of Aurangazeb and Mughal dynasty at large but left a bad taste about Islam for the Hindus.

 

[Suriya]

India, Hindustan & Bharat are already official names of India. There is nothing to rename.

But Dehli should be renamed as Hastinapur.

What does Hastinapur means?

When will Bollywood Mainstream the new names?

Well , actually Hastinapur is old Mahabharat era place near Meerut .

And similarly the Mahabharat era name of Delhi was IndraPrastha .

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

Well , actually Hastinapur is old Mahabharat era place near Meerut .

And similarly the Mahabharat era name of Delhi was IndraPrastha .

Thanks for the clarification.

I am okay with IndraPrastha too.

 

[TMA]

I think it is less to do with ethnicity and more to do with religion.

For example, Mughals were not very religious at all. They even considered adopting Buddhism as their state religion before adopting Islam. Akbar even created his own religion.

The problem really arose during the period of Aurangazeb

1) His act of killing Dara in the succession battle did not go well with the Hindus as Dara was considered as a symbol of religious harmony as he studied and translated Vedas to Persian

2) Aurangazeb rule was under immense financial stress which meant that he had to borrow money from the out side and this meant his had to implement strict Islamic laws which included banning music, re-implementing jizya on non-Muslims etc.

Eventually these steps resulted in the downfall of Aurangazeb and Mughal dynasty at large but left a bad taste about Islam for the Hindus.

So basically it was one emperor that left a bad taste out the rest? What about the pre Mughal Turkic Muslim dynasties? Anyone of them left a bad taste? Did Tipu Sultan leave a bad taste? It seems Bharatis are very much divided on this...

Also if this is the case, then why change the names from other Emperors...only change the ones from Aurangezab's time...?

Also why use Hindu to refer to the followers of Sanatum Dharm? This is a "foreign" word which originally was a geographic term...I do not think the Vedas refers to the Dharm as Hinduism or its followers as Hindus....?

 

[ashok mourya]

India, Hindustan & Bharat are already official names of India. There is nothing to rename.

But Dehli should be renamed as Hastinapur.

No,it's Indraprastha.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indraprastha

 

[Sam.]

We reject this name.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

So basically it was one emperor that left a bad taste out the rest? What about the pre Mughal Turkic Muslim dynasties? Anyone of them left a bad taste? Did Tipu Sultan leave a bad taste? It seems Bharatis are very much divided on this...

Also if this is the case, then why change the names from other Emperors...only change the ones from Aurangezab's time...?

Also why use Hindu to refer to the followers of Sanatum Dharm? This is a "foreign" word which originally was a geographic term...I do not think the Vedas refers to the Dharm as Hinduism or its followers as Hindus....?

Aurangezab's rule was different when compared to the others

1) Aurangezab ruled most parts of the subcontinent unlike other Muslim rulers. There are people who support Tipu as he took help from French to confront the British rule while others in Karnakata/Kerala border dislike him for his killings. There are bigger killings that have happened in the history of the subcontinent from the time of Mahabharata to Ashoka's war against Kaligas. Ashoka killed more people in that war than all Mughals kings combined but those were all wars within the same religion. But the wars with Islamic rulers are looked differently because

a) Ancient rulers did not destroy the temples. They just killed the people who opposed them.
b) There was no Tax based on Religion

2) Aurangezab was almost the last powerful Mughal ruler. British had started taking over India and British took full advantage of frictions caused between Muslims and Hindus due to the policies of Aurangezab. Many Hindus felt comfortable under British East India company than Aurangezab's rule.

3) Hindus and Muslims did show unity even after the Mughals were gone in 1857. This was a wake up call for the British who took full control of India from East India company and started implementing policies that would make the Hindu-Muslim divide as permanent. Starting with Urdu-Hindi conflicts (Aligarh Muslim University vs Beneras Hindu University) and later through Minto-Morley Reforms, British used its lackeys in India to make the Hindu-Muslim divide permanent.


In the early days, People from the subcontinent did support the followers of Ali and fought in the battle of Karbala against the Umayyads in 680 AD. Umayyads did not like this and sent their General Muhammad bin Qasim to take revenge against that act in 711 AD. And the rest was history.

It is ironic that Muslims of the subcontinent are supporting descendants of Umayyads (Saudi Arabia) than descendants of Ali (Persia).

We reject this name.

Why?

 

[Sam.]

Aurangezab's rule was different when compared to the others

1) Aurangezab ruled most parts of the subcontinent unlike other Muslim rulers. There are people who support Tipu as he took help from French to confront the British rule while others in Karnakata/Kerala border dislike him for his killings. There are bigger killings that have happened in the history of the subcontinent from the time of Mahabharata to Ashoka's war against Kaligas. Ashoka killed more people in that war than all Mughals kings combined but those were all wars within the same religion. But the wars with Islamic rulers are looked differently because

a) Ancient rulers did not destroy the temples. They just killed the people who opposed them.
b) There was no Tax based on Religion

2) Aurangezab was almost the last powerful Mughal ruler. British had started taking over India and British took full advantage of frictions caused between Muslims and Hindus due to the policies of Aurangezab. Many Hindus felt comfortable under British East India company than Aurangezab's rule.

3) Hindus and Muslims did show unity even after the Mughals were gone in 1857. This was a wake up call for the British who took full control of India from East India company and started implementing policies that would make the Hindu-Muslim divide as permanent. Starting with Urdu-Hindi conflicts (Aligarh Muslim University vs Beneras Hindu University) and later through Minto-Morley Reforms, British used its lackeys in India to make the Hindu-Muslim divide permanent.


In the early days, People from the subcontinent did support the followers of Ali and fought in the battle of Karbala against the Umayyads in 680 AD. Umayyads did not like this and sent their General Muhammad bin Qasim to take revenge against that act in 711 AD. And the rest was history.

It is ironic that Muslims of the subcontinent are supporting descendants of Umayyads (Saudi Arabia) than descendants of Ali (Persia).



Why?

Laxmi is a goddess of money and no disrespect intended but our values and traditions doesn't follow money.

We are Kshatriya not Baniya.

 

[Maarkhoor]

But Dehli should be renamed as Hastinapur.

 

[MultaniGuy]

I am perfectly fine with this. It is after all their country, their choice. Nobody should be upset about this. But this just proves Jinnah was right about Partition.

 

[ashok mourya]

I am perfectly fine with this. It is after all their country, their choice. Nobody should be upset about this. But this just proves Jinnah was right about Partition.

It's all because of partition... Most people of India believe British India divided on basis of Hindu , Muslims... Muslims got Pakistan, Bangladesh...so Hindus want there Hindu identify back ...