"Hindustani language" : Indian propoganda on Wikipedia

[LASER1]

Yeah I get it, but what I am talking about is the origin/meanings of the words. The word India does not come from Bharat. India comes from Indus. Hind comes from Sindh. Indus and Sindh ain't in (Republic)"India".
I mean Pakistan could change her constitution tomorrow and call herself Bharat in theory and say in Persian it is Pakistan and in Sanskrit it is Bharat. PAKISTAN=BHARAT.
Or more plausible Pakistan could say in English we will refer to ourselves as India.

You have a great name BHARAT. Make it known. Do not use a word that comes from another's river. And also it would be more honest as well.

***only a tiny bit of the Indus is in Bharat and that through disputed territory.

Indus doesn't originate in Pakistan. Even your claim is flawed.

 

[padamchen]

Indus doesn't originate in Pakistan. Even your claim is flawed.

The Indus has always been an INDIAN river. The natural boundary for aeons between the INDIAN and PERSIAN civilizations.

The civilization that grew around it was a hybrid PERSIAN-NATIVE INDIAN (Moolnivasi) civilizational construct.

I'll be damned if we do not call ourselves INDIAN.

The biggest surgical identity excision in the history of mankind was that of the people of Pakistan at partition.

But that is not our problem to address.

Cheers, Doc

 

[TMA]

Indus doesn't originate in Pakistan. Even your claim is flawed.

Well it runs through down the middle of Pakistan. I know the origin is in Tibet. But the actual river where it is known as the Indus is in Pakistan.
Or does it veer off into Bharat?

The Indus has always been an INDIAN river. The natural boundary for aeons between the INDIAN and PERSIAN civilizations.

The civilization that grew around it was a hybrid PERSIAN-NATIVE INDIAN (Moolnivasi) civilizational construct.

I'll be damned if we do not call ourselves INDIAN.

The biggest surgical identity excision in the history of mankind was that of the people of Pakistan at partition.

But that is not our problem to address.

Cheers, Doc

You were British Indians (not all of Bharat and the same for Pakistan). That ceased. British India had the Indus River as part of her territory. Now "India" does not (save the small bit in disputed Kashmir). Pakistan has equal if not greater right to the colonial appellation that is "India". You are now BHARAT (of course part of the Subcontinent of India). There is no etymological link between Bharat and India or Bharat and Hind or Sindh.

My point about this was with @Cobra Arbok about not falsely claiming another's history, but also not false claiming another's name.

 

[padamchen]

Pakistan has equal if not greater right to the colonial appellation that is "India".

I know that. What do you think I meant by "the biggest surgical identity excision in the history of mankind"?

I have read and heard many Pakistanis talk at great lengths about the same.

While large parts of your population do identify with and hanker after alien identities and brotherhood constructs (to which they will never be accepted), the one they want and should have had as right was taken away.

By us.

@Indus Pakistan

Cheers, Doc

 

[LASER1]

Well it runs through down the middle of Pakistan. I know the origin is in Tibet. But the actual river where it is known as the Indus is in Pakistan.
Or does it veer off into Bharat?


You were British Indians (not all of Bharat and the same for Pakistan). That ceased. British India had the Indus River as part of her territory. Now "India" does not (save the small bit in disputed Kashmir). Pakistan has equal if not greater right to the colonial appellation that is "India". You are now BHARAT (of course part of the Subcontinent of India). There is no etymological link between Bharat and India or Bharat and Hind or Sindh.

My point about this was with @Cobra Arbok about not falsely claiming another's history, but also not false claiming another's name.

haha yeah. I know. Anyway, what history exactly are we trying to steal? Is it just the name? We didn't have to steal the culture, because you buried the Hindu civilization. Now it's mostly non-existent. Whereas Hindu culture is still here.

There is enough etymological link between India, Bharat based on various texts. So, save me your lectures. You're Pakistan, you're an Islamic nation. You denounced your cultural history and adopted Islam. Now, what's the point in claiming Hindu history.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

haha yeah. I know. Anyway, what history exactly are we trying to steal? Is it just the name? We didn't have to steal the culture, because you buried the Hindu civilization. Now it's mostly non-existent. Whereas Hindu culture is still here.

There is enough etymological link between India, Bharat based on various texts. So, save me your lectures. You're Pakistan, you're an Islamic nation. You denounced your cultural history and adopted Islam. Now, what's the point in claiming Hindu history.

They are frustrated at the fact that our civilization and culture lasted far longer than theirs, so they use the non issue of the name as an excuse for their insecurities. As I have said before, kind of pathetic and annoying to say the least.

Well it runs through down the middle of Pakistan. I know the origin is in Tibet. But the actual river where it is known as the Indus is in Pakistan.
Or does it veer off into Bharat?


You were British Indians (not all of Bharat and the same for Pakistan). That ceased. British India had the Indus River as part of her territory. Now "India" does not (save the small bit in disputed Kashmir). Pakistan has equal if not greater right to the colonial appellation that is "India". You are now BHARAT (of course part of the Subcontinent of India). There is no etymological link between Bharat and India or Bharat and Hind or Sindh.

My point about this was with @Cobra Arbok about not falsely claiming another's history, but also not false claiming another's name.

WHy does the burden have to be on us? What is stopping you from renaming yourself, the Indian republic of Pakistan? But that will contradict Islam, the foundation of your country. You have to accept the fact your country forsake its history when the became independent and that as a whole, Pakistanis admire Central Asian invaders more than their own ancestors. You have seen many posters here that confirm that. India, on the other hand, preserved its ancient history and culture that it had for over 10000 years. Obviously, the boundaries of modern Bharat have changed considerably over history, but modern India is closest to the fullest extent of the Mauryan Empire, similar how some say Pakistan is the modern version of the Mughals. The choice is yours. Either reclaim your historical name, or keep the new identity you created in 47. Either way, it would be nice if you do not constantly try and dispute our ancient history. Thanks.

 

[ashok mourya]

Pakistan... languages..1.Punjabi 2.Sindhi 3.Pasto etc...They just adopted two foreign languages as there official language ,which are English from British and Urdu from India...

 

[Cobra Arbok]

Pakistan... languages..1.Punjabi 2.Sindhi 3.Pasto etc...They just adopted two foreign languages as there official language ,which are English from British and Urdu from India...

Evn then they do not speak their own languages and instead speak a language developed in Lucknow, the Gangetic plains of India. More proof of how we dominated them culturally, for centuries, yet they have the nerve to say that about us lol. Just more of their insecurities. Its sad and pathetic to say the least.

 

[TMA]

They are frustrated at the fact that our civilization and culture lasted far longer than theirs, so they use the non issue of the name as an excuse for their insecurities. As I have said before, kind of pathetic and annoying to say the least.


WHy does the burden have to be on us? What is stopping you from renaming yourself, the Indian republic of Pakistan? But that will contradict Islam, the foundation of your country. You have to accept the fact your country forsake its history when the became independent and that as a whole, Pakistanis admire Central Asian invaders more than their own ancestors. You have seen many posters here that confirm that. India, on the other hand, preserved its ancient history and culture that it had for over 10000 years. Obviously, the boundaries of modern Bharat have changed considerably over history, but modern India is closest to the fullest extent of the Mauryan Empire, similar how some say Pakistan is the modern version of the Mughals. The choice is yours. Either reclaim your historical name, or keep the new identity you created in 47. Either way, it would be nice if you do not constantly try and dispute our ancient history. Thanks.

You (not personally) should not falsely take another's name just like you agree that one should not take another's history without giving proper due. Or is the burden on the one to prevent "theft" and if the "thief" gets away then that is morally correct?
I do not see a problem with keeping our history and the new identity of 1947. There was no forsaking. That is why Quaid E Azaam was angry that Nehru took the name India cos he Quaid e Azaam knew what it meant.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Many Pakistanis have ancestry (in part) that comes from Central Asia and many have ancestry that comes from Indus Land. Just like many Bharatis have non Bharati ancestry. Just like many English have non Anglo-Saxon ancestry. True they tend over celebrate the Central Asian ancestors than the Indus Ancestors but this is unfortunately due to the reactionary response and politicisation of identity which happened during British India times. I wish that Pakistanis now get over this reactionary phase. British India is no more. And with time Pakistanis are slowly coming out of this phase.
Also another reason is that many of the (Central Asian/Persian origin) Muslim intelligentsia of the past (before British India and even Mughal India) in the Subcontinent of India did not fully aspire to true Islamic ideals and were rather dismissive of the converted Muslims. E.g. you will read that if a follower of the Sanatum Dharm converts to Islam and although he is capable he should not be given a State position, only those of Persian/Central Asian blood are eligible. There were even fataawa on this. This sort of discrimination helped foster this sort of imbalance which under the British Indian rule was exploited and advanced into the reactionary identity politics of the relatively recent past....

 

[Cobra Arbok]

You (not personally) should not falsely take another's name just like you agree that one should not take another's history without giving proper due. Or is the burden on the one to prevent "theft" and if the "thief" gets away then that is morally correct?
I do not see a problem with keeping our history and the new identity of 1947. There was no forsaking. That is why Quaid E Azaam was angry that Nehru took the name India cos he Quaid e Azaam knew what it meant.
They are not mutually exclusive.
Many Pakistanis have ancestry (in part) that comes from Central Asia and many have ancestry that comes from Indus Land. Just like many Bharatis have non Bharati ancestry. Just like many English have non Anglo-Saxon ancestry. True they tend over celebrate the Central Asian ancestors than the Indus Ancestors but this is unfortunately due to the reactionary response and politicisation of identity which happened during British India times. I wish that Pakistanis now get over this reactionary phase. British India is no more. And with time Pakistanis are slowly coming out of this phase.
Also another reason is that many of the (Central Asian/Persian origin) Muslim intelligentsia of the past (before British India and even Mughal India) in the Subcontinent of India did not fully aspire to true Islamic ideals and were rather dismissive of the converted Muslims. E.g. you will read that if a follower of the Sanatum Dharm converts to Islam and although he is capable he should not be given a State position, only those of Persian/Central Asian blood are eligible. There were even fataawa on this. This sort of discrimination helped foster this sort of imbalance which under the British Indian rule was exploited and advanced into the reactionary identity politics of the relatively recent past....

okay you win. I will take out my magic wand and erase the word India from the dictionary. The only name anyone will know is bharat. Happy?

 

[Great Brahmin]

Bharat is a fake nation that uses a name derived from a river on another's territory.

Bharat is from Biggest Rigvedic tribe Bharata that settled in Haryana and western Up, nothing to do with indus bindus river.

originator of my tribe was the Royal priest of the King Sudas of Bharat tribe.

Oh a lot more than 0.000001% converted....and this is what burns you.....many of your very own blood accepted the Religion of Abraham (Peace be upon him).....

burns ? i said before 0.00000001% converted and those converted were sultans. we dont even consider them as our own now.

Abraham is foreign and un-Aryan to us,noting to do with us.

It is due to arrogance of many of the Scholars/Elites of Indian Muslims that all of the Subcontinent of India did not accept the Religion of Abraham (Peace be upon him), otherwise the Subcontinent of India would be like Persia, Central Asia, Indonesia and Malaysia....majority Muslim.

blah, as if we were ready to accept religion of sudras lol.

Some Brahmins are Nepalese some are Pakistani

Nepal is just another province of wider Aryavarta Region. 3000 to 5000 Brahmins lives in pakistan, not a big number and pakistan is not Brahminical in any way.

...maybe some are Indonesians ( I don't know if there were Brahmin in ancient Indonesia).

funny, whole south East is still dotted with Brahmins. even thai king have Brahmins in his court.

my uncle visited Bali few years ago and he was treated as celebrity there. according to local tradition you have to bath shirtless before entering Temple there, when some priest saw sacred thread on his upper body he was invited to do prayer in the main temple.

Brahmin blood is not exclusive to Bharat. Indeed Brahmin religion is not exclusive to Bharat. Nepal...

as i said before, Brahmincal Doctrine in exclusive to the Brahmin, it passes through blood. nothing to do with fake artificial nations.

we carry High and noble blood of ancient 6 Dharmic Prophets and one true God and god have given this doctrine to spread all over world since our Father Manu (1st Prophet) was born.

You do know that what people call "Hindiusm" today is so diverse that it means different things to different people...."Hindiusm" in Ancient Pakistan was very different to "Hindiusm" in Ancient Bharat to Ancient Indonesia....

Hinduism is tied to the Brahmins, my mothers side is Sindhi Brahmin and my own Great Grandfather was a Businessman in Karachi before partition, safe to say theres no difference between Brahminical Hinduism in Panjab-Haryana or Sindh-Rajasthan-Gujarat.

even modern-day Hindus of Balochistan have similar Hinduism.

only place where Hinduism is different from mainstream Brahmical one is out side Aryavarta, in South India and South East Asia but due to Rapid globalization the difference is declining Rapidly.

if you want to learn more about Brahmin confederacy you can tell me, i will tag you in future. me and @padamchen tag each other when we discuss these stuff. Brahminical Doctrine shares many things with Zoroastrian Parsi Doctrine. padamchen Claims origin from Atharvan Tribe, also Bloodline of an Indo-Iranian Prophet.

 

[padamchen]

Bharat is from Biggest Rigvedic tribe Bharata that settled in Haryana and western Up, nothing to do with indus bindus river.

originator of my tribe was the Royal priest of the King Sudas of Bharat tribe.



burns ? i said before 0.00000001% converted and those converted were sultans. we dont even consider them as our own now.

Abraham is foreign and un-Aryan to us,noting to do with us.



blah, as if we were ready to accept religion of sudras lol.



Nepal is just another province of wider Aryavarta Region. 3000 to 5000 Brahmins lives in pakistan, not a big number and pakistan is not Brahminical in any way.



funny, whole south East is still dotted with Brahmins. even thai king have Brahmins in his court.

my uncle visited Bali few years ago and he was treated as celebrity there. according to local tradition you have to bath shirtless before entering Temple there, when some priest saw sacred thread on his upper body he was invited to do prayer in the main temple.



as i said before, Brahmincal Doctrine in exclusive to the Brahmin, it passes through blood. nothing to do with fake artificial nations.

we carry High and noble blood of ancient 6 Dharmic Prophets and one true God and god have given this doctrine to spread all over world since our Father Manu (1st Prophet) was born.



Hinduism is tied to the Brahmins, my mothers side is Sindhi Brahmin and my own Great Grandfather was a Businessman in Karachi before partition, safe to say theres no difference between Brahminical Hinduism in Panjab-Haryana or Sindh-Rajasthan-Gujarat.

even modern-day Hindus of Balochistan have similar Hinduism.

only place where Hinduism is different from mainstream Brahmical one is out side Aryavarta, in South India and South East Asia but due to Rapid globalization the difference is declining Rapidly.

if you want to learn more about Brahmin confederacy you can tell me, i will tag you in future. me and @padamchen tag each other when we discuss these stuff. Brahminical Doctrine shares many things with Zoroastrian Parsi Doctrine. padamchen Claims origin from Atharvan Tribe, also Bloodline of an Indo-Iranian Prophet.

On a day when some of their good ones are PMSing, some of his posts marks @TMA as potential.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Great Brahmin]

On a day when some of their good ones are PMSing, some of his posts marks @TMA as potential.

Cheers, Doc

agreed, thats why i offered to keep @TMA with us, we Brahmins dont even allow lower bloodlines to comes near us, assuming parsis have same tradition.

he have open mind and refined, must be due to some Sayyid or Persian Ancestry.

 

[padamchen]

agreed, thats why i offered to keep @TMA with us, we Brahmins dont even allow lower bloodlines to comes near us, assuming parsis have same tradition.

he have open mind and refined, must be due to some Sayyid or Persian Ancestry.

I have an open secular mind about blood to be honest.

As long as there is no mixing involved.

All people have their own place, and I greatly identity with the Hindu concept of blood in matriage.

I've never understood how someone can just "become" someone else .....

And you can extend that further to a people equally.

Cheers, Doc

 

[TMA]

agreed, thats why i offered to keep @TMA with us, we Brahmins dont even allow lower bloodlines to comes near us, assuming parsis have same tradition.

he have open mind and refined, must be due to some Sayyid or Persian Ancestry.

As far as I know I don't have Sayyid or Persian blood. Only Indus (including Bharat occupied Kashmir). But I am probably tainted in your eyes, my mother's family are descendants of Kashmiri Pandits and my mother married into what would be consider a "lowly" Punjabi tribe that were land workers historically...