24 ms·

This needs to be emphasised more. In India, the right wing Hindu brigade try very hard to appropriate ancient Indian history as that of the Hindu religion (whil

This needs to be emphasised more. In India, the right wing Hindu brigade try very hard to appropriate ancient Indian history as that of the Hindu religion (while also conveniently even denying that it is indeed a religion). Most modern day Indians do not take the trouble to learn about India (the notion of which was created by the British). If they did they'd realise that speaking about ancient Hindu culture as something that they can associate with is as silly as the British claiming they invented Democracy just because they were part on the roman empire at some point (as also was Greece who actually could make that claim)

shripadk 10y ago
> This needs to be emphasised more This is a well known fact for many in India. > In India, the right wing Hindu brigade try very hard to appropriate ancient Indian history as that of the Hindu religion (while also conveniently even denying that it is indeed a religion). This is where you are wrong. There is no "ancient Indian history". "India" was formed in 1947 and if at all there is any history for India it is the past 70 years. We were called Hindustan before 1947. The word Hindustan was not based on the religion that we know today as "Hinduism". The religion was called Sanathan Dharma. The word Hindu however, as was rightly said in the grandparent comment, a name given by the Persian invaders. What the right wingers do propagate is "Hindutvawadi" or that we are all Hindus -> Hindu-Christians, Hindu-Muslims, Hindu-Sikhs, Hindu-Buddhists, Hindu-Jains, Hindu-Sanatanis etc. Hindu being the geographical name of the Country we reside in and Sanathan Dharma/Islam/Christianity/Jainism/Buddhism etc being the actual religion. Does this make sense? Mahatma Gandhi said the following: "I call myself a Sanatani Hindu, because I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, and all that goes by the name of Hindu scripture, and therefore in avataras and rebirth; I believe in the varnashrama dharma in a sense, in my opinion strictly Vedic but not in its presently popular and distorted crude sense; I believe in the protection of cow. I do not disbelieve in murti puja.". Was Mahatma Gandhi a right winger to call himself a "Sanatani Hindu"? Why call himself a "Sanatani Hindu" if Sanatan and Hindu both mean the same? It is very evident that the word Hindu in pre-independence India mean't geographical boundary and the word Hindu post-independence India means religion. > Most modern day Indians do not take the trouble to learn about India (the notion of which was created by the British). If they did they'd realise that speaking about ancient Hindu culture as something that they can associate with is as silly as the British claiming they invented Democracy just because they were part on the roman empire at some point (as also was Greece who actually could make that claim) The problem is that no one claims to be "associating" with ancient Hindu culture because the context of the word "Hindu" changed drastically over the past century. What was once a geographical association pre-Independence has now turned into a religious association. It's extremely sad that it has been distorted in this manner all in the name of Secularism.

shripadk 10y ago

> This needs to be emphasised more This is a well known fact for many in India. > In India, the right wing Hindu brigade try very hard to appropriate ancient Indian history as that of the Hindu religion (while also conveniently even denying that it is indeed a religion). This is where you are wrong. There is no "ancient Indian history". "India" was formed in 1947 and if at all there is any history for India it is the past 70 years. We were called Hindustan before 1947. The word Hindustan was not based on the religion that we know today as "Hinduism". The religion was called Sanathan Dharma. The word Hindu however, as was rightly said in the grandparent comment, a name given by the Persian invaders. What the right wingers do propagate is "Hindutvawadi" or that we are all Hindus -> Hindu-Christians, Hindu-Muslims, Hindu-Sikhs, Hindu-Buddhists, Hindu-Jains, Hindu-Sanatanis etc. Hindu being the geographical name of the Country we reside in and Sanathan Dharma/Islam/Christianity/Jainism/Buddhism etc being the actual religion. Does this make sense? Mahatma Gandhi said the following: "I call myself a Sanatani Hindu, because I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas, and all that goes by the name of Hindu scripture, and therefore in avataras and rebirth; I believe in the varnashrama dharma in a sense, in my opinion strictly Vedic but not in its presently popular and distorted crude sense; I believe in the protection of cow. I do not disbelieve in murti puja.". Was Mahatma Gandhi a right winger to call himself a "Sanatani Hindu"? Why call himself a "Sanatani Hindu" if Sanatan and Hindu both mean the same? It is very evident that the word Hindu in pre-independence India mean't geographical boundary and the word Hindu post-independence India means religion. > Most modern day Indians do not take the trouble to learn about India (the notion of which was created by the British). If they did they'd realise that speaking about ancient Hindu culture as something that they can associate with is as silly as the British claiming they invented Democracy just because they were part on the roman empire at some point (as also was Greece who actually could make that claim) The problem is that no one claims to be "associating" with ancient Hindu culture because the context of the word "Hindu" changed drastically over the past century. What was once a geographical association pre-Independence has now turned into a religious association. It's extremely sad that it has been distorted in this manner all in the name of Secularism.