Hindustaanam

[sar 0]

Regarding the Hindutva overtones, whether one likes it or not, it has been a Hindu nation, it is so even now and will remain so; not because the Hindu religion is in a majority, but the ethos which has shaped our nation has come to identity itself with Hinduism. Hinduism is nothing but a geographical-cum-cultural concept. The Church of England is the official religion of the U.K. The U.S. President-designate has to swear by the Bible and in 1983 the American Senate unanimously voted to celebrate 1984 as Bible Year. Yet we do not hold them as fundamentalists because they only conform to the ethos on which these nations were evolved. Though it is only 50 years since we

got political freedom, it is a fact that both the fundamentalists and the secularists alike boast of a history of at least 5,000 years. In our case it is the Vedas, the Upanishads and the epics which have shaped the ethos on which this nation is evolved. For those who think that the word "Hindu" is religious and is of a recent origin, let me quote from Agama Purana: Himaalayam samaarabhya / Yaavad Indu

sarovaram / Tham deva nirmitham desom / Hindustaanam prajakshatheth.

It means, "This God's own land which extends from Himalaya to Indu sea is called Hindustaanam." Still, the son of this soil, irrespective of his religious belief, finds it difficult to call himself a "Hindu." The fault lies in our education system. The Vedas and the Upanishads have nothing to do with the Hindu religion. They only expound the theories of the existence of the

world and the do's and don'ts for the creatures living in it. We just cannot wish away the fact that everything that we consider our contribution to mankind lies in Sanskrit. Until and unless we, learn that language how can we come to know the greatness and pitfalls of our tradition?

As Max Mueller, the propagator of the Aryan invasion theory, wrote to his wife, "It took only 200 years for us to Christianise the whole of Africa, but even after 400 years India eludes us, I have come to realise that it is Sanskrit which has enabled India to do so. And to break it I have decided to learn Sanskrit." The soul of India lies in Sanskrit. And Lord Macaulay saw to it that the later generations are successfully cut off from their roots.

 

http://hinduwisdom.info/articles_hinduism/255.htm

 

 

 

I had to bring up this post since one of the posters was trolling in my other thread asking for why India is called Hindustan. However the question itself is silly but i did find an answer. But this will be my first and last post in this thread and i am not even going to read it again because it is obviously open to trolling posts which at the end has no literal use.

I am just wondering, if the British call their land Britain, will someone raise and protest? This only happens in India. If an Indian decided to work and stay in the US or UK he is agreeing to be a MINORITY in their nation. Even if he stays in the UK for generations, can he call himself a "British", even if he is a "converted" Christian?

I mean all these crazy things happen only here in India. The westeners come here, Christianize our people, and they teach them the art of Christianizing. Later its when there are scandals in the country, they sit there saying Christians in India are attacked by Hindus. Hindus are no good.

As Max Mueller, the propagator of the Aryan invasion theory, wrote to his wife, "It took only 200 years for us to Christianise the whole of Africa, but even after 400 years India eludes us, I have come to realise that it is Sanskrit which has enabled India to do so. And to break it I have decided to learn Sanskrit." The soul of India lies in Sanskrit. And Lord Macaulay saw to it that the later generations are successfully cut off from their roots.

 

I should ask a question to those kind of people, will you take the people from India to your country after you "Christianize" them and give them equal respect in your country?

 

 

 

 

<!-- body="end" -->