Hindu nationalist-led state changes Muslim name of Indian city

[desirous of desire]

Prayag holds a religious significance to Hindus, names before that don't.

Yes I can totally understand that, hence I said India is for Hindus. It is only a reply to those who say they are restoring its name.If they considered Muslims, living in India, too then why would they change existing name?

Pakistan is an Islamic country but India is secular....

 

[PakLFC]

You are at the verge of calling the whole nation stupid that includes us indians here too. You have to draw a line somewhere.

I don't see any lines here at the moment as much as I wish there were some. Most Congress supporters in India are sane and rational. This is why India needs them to win the next elections.

 

[BlackShadow]

Yes I can totally understand that, hence I said India is for Hindus. It is only a reply to those who say they are restoring its name.If they considered Muslims, living in India, too then why would they change existing name?

Pakistan is an Islamic country but India is secular....

Of course not.

If the name change infringed upon religious rights of Muslims, then yes, this would have been a blow to secularism. But it doesn't.

 

[Itachi]

More temples have been demolished in Gujarat under Modi, and you call changing the glorious name of a city for communal reasons "humane" ? No one has ever heard of Pragysomething while Allahabad is associated with Islamic culture, Urdu poets, etc Hindu nationalists are not Indian nationalists in the sense that they also look at the welfare of non Indian Hindus as well, so if the Hindu symbolic in Pak is targeted the same way they attempt to do in India with Islamic heritage, they'll at least feel something, instead of being all passive and post comments on PP while Ghalib is soon called Ganesh to not "offend Hindu sentiments".

We put nation first. Whatever you do in your home is your business until your dirty laundry will affects us. Your

 

[enkidu_]

We put nation first. Whatever you do in your home is your business until your dirty laundry will affects us. Your

Peoples should stop talking in "we" when they're not elected representatives of anything substantial.

"You" might put your nation first, but it's well known for anyone relatively familiar with Hindutvadi rhetoric that for them a non Indian Hindu has more worth than an Indian Muslim. It's "Hindu first" for them. They care about Hindus elsewhere, because they see being Hindu as to belong to a nation. Why do you think they're so much critical of secularism ? Because secularism makes them psychologically subversient to the minorities, they can't express their Hindu identity.

Those are the ones to unleash the war against Islamic symbolism in the erstwhile Mughal Empire, and they should be aware of the fact that this war might end up looking like a sati for Hindu symbolism elsewhere, nominally in Pakistan.

The Katas Raj temples might only remain in the Mahabharata if all of this continues.

Use your sharingan for a change and see that Hindu nationalists are not doing laundry but burning their own dhoti there.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Peoples should stop talking in "we" when they're not elected representatives of anything substantial.

"You" might put your nation first, but it's well known for anyone relatively familiar with Hindutvadi rhetoric that for them a non Indian Hindu has more worth than an Indian Muslim. It's "Hindu first" for them. They care about Hindus elsewhere, because they see being Hindu as to belong to a nation. Why do you think they're so much critical of secularism ? Because secularism makes them psychologically subversient to the minorities, they can't express their Hindu identity.

Those are the ones to unleash the war against Islamic symbolism in the erstwhile Mughal Empire, and they should be aware of the fact that this war might end up looking like a sati for Hindu symbolism elsewhere, nominally in Pakistan.

The Katas Raj temples might only remain in the Mahabharata if all of this continues.

Use your sharingan for a change and see that Hindu nationalists are not doing laundry but burning their own dhoti there.

As they say, the true character people is revealed when they are given power. hindus have got power since a few years and their character is revealed.

 

[Madplayer]

It is more in the line of bringing back heritage of india. Many other places are in consideration to change their names to their old names.

It has nothing to do with religion. It is just a co incidence that the name sounds Hindu because at that time, there wasn't Muslim rulers in place.

You are conflicting historical reason with religion. If you want to twist it, you can but no such conflict was seen in past when names are changed as those names aren't arbitrary that came out of no where rather, they had a rich past behind it.

Mate, in this thread itself many hindu posters have said that it is being done because of religion to bring back sanctity of the name. If you personally think it has nothing to do with religion then thats another story. Most of hindus and muslims will see it as a religiously motivated move (and also it is politically motivated).

 

[MP2011]

Another effort by Sanghis to pander to votebank politics instead of doing development. Even worse than Sanghis is the electorate which chooses them with such brute majority!

No wonder UP is going to dumps under "bhogi".

 

[MP2011]

Sanghis know they don't have any development activity to show to their electorate and hence are indulging in such meaningless and communal rhetoric, with what general elections being 6-7 months away!

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

This. Sanctity of the name has been restored, and it is good to see Hindus being unapologetic about it for a change.

Why do you think it is a refreshing change for Hindus not to be apologetic? Perhaps you prefer Hindus to adopt a more militant stance as per the Taliban?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

For what it's worth, speaking as someone who has Pakistani heritage, I have never been a fan of Islamabad as a name. I realise it was a new city, built in the shadow of Rawalpindi, but that name doesn't really reflect the area so well in my opinion. Not a fan of Food Street in Lahore either. Whoever was charged with coming up with that name should have been fired on the spot.

 

[Itachi]

Mate, in this thread itself many hindu posters have said that it is being done because of religion to bring back sanctity of the name. If you personally think it has nothing to do with religion then thats another story. Most of hindus and muslims will see it as a religiously motivated move (and also it is politically motivated).

I would like to see those words where it was claimed.I believe miscomprehended could be the reason.

 

[BlackShadow]

Why do you think it is a refreshing change for Hindus not to be apologetic? Perhaps you prefer Hindus to adopt a more militant stance as per the Taliban?

I don't see how this is related.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I don't see how this is related.

You claimed you were glad to see Hindus being unapologetic for a change, i.e., most people would intepret that as usually Hindus ARE apologetic. Among Muslims an apologetic Muslim is one who is considered weak in faith and sees their religion through the eyes of the non-Muslim. The opposite of that would be the Taliban who are unashamed and strident Muslims.

Do you understand the link now?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Because the place has had a muslim sounding name since centuries and changing it to a hindu name would be seen by muslims as a communal attack against them.

The place is a hindu place of religious significance and had a sanskrit name for more than a millenia which was changed by a muslim invader and reflected his bigotry.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Now they will tell us Muslim's of India are having a brilliant time There is no discrimination in secular India at allThey will justify it by telling us of their celebrities with Muslim names

Why will anyone tell you anything? So much sense of entitlement that you take online forum discussions as an attempt of Indians trying to convince you. Your view point on India doesnot affect Indian muslims.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

The place is a hindu place of religious significance and had a sanskrit name for more than a millenia which was changed by a muslim invader and reflected his bigotry.

You are using 21st century standards to apply the term bigotry so it is not necessarily a true reflection. At that time Hinduism itself could be accused of bigotry with widow burning and caste discrimination rampant, so it could just as easily be argued that the Mughal ruler was attempting to stamp out indigenous bigotry.

 

[Saeed]

Wow a new world record, probably the most productive day in UP’s cabnit history.

 

[cricketjoshila]

You are using 21st century standards to apply the term bigotry so it is not necessarily a true reflection. At that time Hinduism itself could be accused of bigotry with widow burning and caste discrimination rampant, so it could just as easily be argued that the Mughal ruler was attempting to stamp out indigenous bigotry.

Muslims till this day practice things like Polygamy, Nikah halala, Jihad etc etc. By your argument it will should be ok to stamp out muslim bigotry the way muslim rulers did to other religions in the subcontinent. Right?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Our parosi friends are so concerned about this name change. They are free to go ahead and name Islamabad as Allahabad. Thats their prerogative.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Muslims till this day practice things like Polygamy, Nikah halala, Jihad etc etc. By your argument it will should be ok to stamp out muslim bigotry the way muslim rulers did to other religions in the subcontinent. Right?

No that is not my argument, it is yours. I merely pointed out that you are using 21st century standards to brand the Mughal rule as bigoted without considering much of Hindu practice at that time might have been even more bigoted. It is all about perspective and context and you need to apply both before flinging around terms like bigotry with clear prejudice to your own bias.

 

[Pakistanian]

Our parosi friends are so concerned about this name change. They are free to go ahead and name Islamabad as Allahabad. Thats their prerogative.

Man you have issues. Not eveything here is "India vs Pakistan", so you don't have to attack people and disagree with them just because of their background. You're overly nationalistic and try to force people into boxes. Can't have a discourse this way.

 

[Jin Chacha]

The place is a hindu place of religious significance and had a sanskrit name for more than a millenia which was changed by a muslim invader and reflected his bigotry.

It is up to the elected representatives of Indian people to name a city whatever they want but I am curious by how you define an invader and how you differentiate between ‘original’ Indian heritage and cultural influences brought by invaders. Was Babar an invader? Absolutely. Hamuayun? Maybe. Akbar? Maybe an ‘Indian’ of central Asian heritage? Shah Jahan? A third generation Indian? At what point if at all in your opinion did the Mughals stopped being invaders and became Indian?

Is the architecture, art and literature that evolved from the fusion of Arab, Turk, Persian, and indigenous culture a part of Indian heritage or an unfortunate consequence of foreign invasions? The grand trunk road commissioned by Afghan Sher Shah Suri, the Taj Mahal commissioned by a Central Asian, the Qutb Minar commissioned by a Turk, the gateway of India commissioned by the British. All monuments built by locals under the rule of foreigners. Are all these symbols of contamination of ‘original’ Indian culture by foreign influences or an integral part of Indian heritage? Is Urdu a part of Indian heritage or the distortion of local Sanskrit by foreign invaders?

These are not rhetorical questions. I am genuinely curious about your opinion.

 

[the Great Khan]

wasnt Allahabad named such to allow for both hindus and Muslims to accept it? Hindus would call it Illahabad and the Muslims Allahabad. Only in recent memory has it become known as Allahabad. And I thought India was a secular country where this stuff shouldnt matter. For example in the US you have a city or town called Medina. I dont see the americans changing it to another name because the US is a secular country. Also Pakistan has not changed the name of Abbottabad even though we are defined as an Islamic republic.

 

[jusarrived]

Not a big fan of these name changes . it helps no and costs money which can be of use elsewhere !!

 

[troodon]

wasnt Allahabad named such to allow for both hindus and Muslims to accept it? Hindus would call it Illahabad and the Muslims Allahabad. Only in recent memory has it become known as Allahabad. And I thought India was a secular country where this stuff shouldnt matter. For example in the US you have a city or town called Medina. I dont see the americans changing it to another name because the US is a secular country. Also Pakistan has not changed the name of Abbottabad even though we are defined as an Islamic republic.

Prayag is very holy for Hindus and it is only 2nd to Kashi. Its not some random place in India named after a Muslim ruler.

 

[cricketjoshila]

No that is not my argument, it is yours. I merely pointed out that you are using 21st century standards to brand the Mughal rule as bigoted without considering much of Hindu practice at that time might have been even more bigoted. It is all about perspective and context and you need to apply both before flinging around terms like bigotry with clear prejudice to your own bias.

Hindus were living in their land practising their religion. Invaders came destroyed their temples, killed their people, changed the names of their pilgrim places etc etc etc. Thats bigotry.

 

[Pakistanian]

Prayag is very holy for Hindus and it is only 2nd to Kashi. Its not some random place in India named after a Muslim ruler.

Allah isn't a muslim ruler, it's just another word for G-d, a higher entity. Don't Hindus believe in God(s)?

 

[Pakistanian]

Hindus were living in their land practising their religion. Invaders came destroyed their temples, killed their people, changed the names of their pilgrim places etc etc etc. Thats bigotry.

While you're at it demolish the Taj Mahal and all Mughal era Mosques.

 

[BlackShadow]

wasnt Allahabad named such to allow for both hindus and Muslims to accept it? Hindus would call it Illahabad and the Muslims Allahabad. Only in recent memory has it become known as Allahabad. And I thought India was a secular country where this stuff shouldnt matter. For example in the US you have a city or town called Medina. I dont see the americans changing it to another name because the US is a secular country. Also Pakistan has not changed the name of Abbottabad even though we are defined as an Islamic republic.

Literally every few Kilometers, you have a Muslim sounding place in India. Even tyrants like Aurangzeb have roads and monuments named after him and they are still called the same.

American or Pakistani example you quoted happens to be an exception to the norm. In India, the scenario is totally opposite where changing a city's name to it's ancient Hindu roots is becoming a topic of heated debate.

 

[cricketjoshila]

It is up to the elected representatives of Indian people to name a city whatever they want but I am curious by how you define an invader and how you differentiate between ‘original’ Indian heritage and cultural influences brought by invaders. Was Babar an invader? Absolutely. Hamuayun? Maybe. Akbar? Maybe an ‘Indian’ of central Asian heritage? Shah Jahan? A third generation Indian? At what point if at all in your opinion did the Mughals stopped being invaders and became Indian?

Is the architecture, art and literature that evolved from the fusion of Arab, Turk, Persian, and indigenous culture a part of Indian heritage or an unfortunate consequence of foreign invasions? The grand trunk road commissioned by Afghan Sher Shah Suri, the Taj Mahal commissioned by a Central Asian, the Qutb Minar commissioned by a Turk, the gateway of India commissioned by the British. All monuments built by locals under the rule of foreigners. Are all these symbols of contamination of ‘original’ Indian culture by foreign influences or an integral part of Indian heritage? Is Urdu a part of Indian heritage or the distortion of local Sanskrit by foreign invaders?

These are not rhetorical questions. I am genuinely curious about your opinion.

Mughals identified themselves as Timurids not indians. Used persian as their court language and language of conversation. Some of them imposed the Jaziya on hindus. Then there were pilgrimage taxes. The Mughals were nothing but invaders.

FYI the original route of Grand Trunk Road was made during the Mauryan empire it finds mention in the works of Megasthenes. Sher Shah Suri merely renovated and extended it.

What do you know of the Qutub minar? Any idea how many temples were destroyed and the material from there used to build Qutub minar?

Indian architecture was pretty advanced long before the invaders came. You make it sound as if they brought architecture to tye subcontinent. God knows how many temples monasteries buildings were destroyed or renamed by these invaders.

The invaders came, used the land and other resources of the people to build these buildings.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Literally every few Kilometers, you have a Muslim sounding place in India. Even tyrants like Aurangzeb have roads and monuments named after him and they are still called the same.

American or Pakistani example you quoted happens to be an exception to the norm. In India, the scenario is totally opposite where changing a city's name to it's ancient Hindu roots is becoming a topic of heated debate.

The name Aurangabad should be changed ASAP. And also Bakhtiyarpur

 

[slipcatch]

Literally every few Kilometers, you have a Muslim sounding place in India. Even tyrants like Aurangzeb have roads and monuments named after him and they are still called the same.

American or Pakistani example you quoted happens to be an exception to the norm. In India, the scenario is totally opposite where changing a city's name to it's ancient Hindu roots is becoming a topic of heated debate.

because of rise in radicalized extremists hinduism and bigotry against minority by majority.

 

[Pakistanian]

Mughals identified themselves as Timurids not indians. Used persian as their court language and language of conversation. Some of them imposed the Jaziya on hindus. Then there were pilgrimage taxes. The Mughals were nothing but invaders.

FYI the original route of Grand Trunk Road was made during the Mauryan empire it finds mention in the works of Megasthenes. Sher Shah Suri merely renovated and extended it.

What do you know of the Qutub minar? Any idea how many temples were destroyed and the material from there used to build Qutub minar?

Indian architecture was pretty advanced long before the invaders came. You make it sound as if they brought architecture to tye subcontinent. God knows how many temples monasteries buildings were destroyed or renamed by these invaders.

The invaders came, used the land and other resources of the people to build these buildings.

India should also change its name since India is a Greek word, y'all should also change the language Hindi since its a Persian word and the language has too many loan words from Arabic and Farsi.

 

[Saeed]

Hindus were living in their land practising their religion. Invaders came destroyed their temples, killed their people, changed the names of their pilgrim places etc etc etc. Thats bigotry.

The place you call India was put together by invaders. From the POV of modern day Bengal, wouldn’t Gupta be a invader since he conquered the Kingdom of Magadha and made it part of its empire?

 

[slipcatch]

India should also change its name since India is a Greek word, y'all should also change the language Hindi since its a Persian word and the language has too many loan words from Arabic and Farsi.

It is like, A white person want All white christian America, the only way it will happen if they kill every non-christian, non-white person.

Only KKK and racist followers believe in it and it is synonymous to some of the posters who are trying their best to bring about Hindutva.

Hatred against minority in India, particularly against Muslims of India is really scary.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Hindus were living in their land practising their religion. Invaders came destroyed their temples, killed their people, changed the names of their pilgrim places etc etc etc. Thats bigotry.

Again missing context and perspective. Hindu texts historically have included such gems as:

• If a Shudra arrogantly presumes to preach religion to Brahmins, the king shall have poured burning oil in his mouth and ears
  [*]
• Any women violating duty and code of conduct towards her husband, is disgraced and becomes a patient of leprosy. After death, she enters womb of Jackal
• In case a women, proud of the greatness of her excellence or her relatives, violates her duty towards her husband, the King shall arrange to have her thrown before dogs at a public place.

Wouldn't you call any of those as indicative of bigotry?

 

[Pakistanian]

The place you call India was put together by invaders. From the POV of modern day Bengal, wouldn’t Gupta be a invader since he conquered the Kingdom of Magadha and made it part of its empire?

exactly, india was never a country historically. Bengalis have like nothing in common with Punjabis, and the same could be said about every other ethnicity, so India doesn't share a common history.

 

[Jin Chacha]

Mughals identified themselves as Timurids not indians. Used persian as their court language and language of conversation. Some of them imposed the Jaziya on hindus. Then there were pilgrimage taxes. The Mughals were nothing but invaders.

FYI the original route of Grand Trunk Road was made during the Mauryan empire it finds mention in the works of Megasthenes. Sher Shah Suri merely renovated and extended it.

What do you know of the Qutub minar? Any idea how many temples were destroyed and the material from there used to build Qutub minar?

Indian architecture was pretty advanced long before the invaders came. You make it sound as if they brought architecture to tye subcontinent. God knows how many temples monasteries buildings were destroyed or renamed by these invaders.

The invaders came, used the land and other resources of the people to build these buildings.

That was not my point. I never implied that the invaders brought superior technology or art with them nor am I an apologist of muslim conquerors. My question was if you consider what evolved from the synthesis of these foreign influences as Indian heritage or something that needs to be revised to go back to a purer more 'Indian' culture.

 

[BlackShadow]

The name Aurangabad should be changed ASAP. And also Bakhtiyarpur

Absolutely. But prepare yourself for another panic attack in the forum just because that tyrant happened to be a Muslim.

 

[BlackShadow]

because of rise in radicalized extremists hinduism and bigotry against minority by majority.

A place sacred to Hindus has been given it's ancient Hindu name again. That's not bigotry.

Religion, ethnicity, history etc are all valid reasons for a city or state's name to be changed. Even my own state's name was changed from Uttaranchal (BJP given) to Uttarkhand (used in ancient scriptures). Prayag is a similar example, but all this whining and crying is happening because of an Islamic name being taken away.

Part of West Bengal may become "Gorkhaland" some day, or atleast that's whats being demanded. Doesn't sound like a very Indian or Hindu name to me, but that's the proposal. People's religious or ethnic sentiments have always been respected in India, and such requests are taken seriously.

 

[troodon]

Allah isn't a muslim ruler, it's just another word for G-d, a higher entity. Don't Hindus believe in God(s)?

Is Allah same as Shiva/Mahadev? If Muslims agree to this, then it should not even be discussed.

 

[Pakistanian]

Is Allah same as Shiva/Mahadev? If Muslims agree to this, then it should not even be discussed.

Allah is a word for God, Christian Arabs also use the word "Allah". We don't have to agree with who God is but the word is the same. Allah and God are interchangeable. For Muslims, Allah is the God of Abraham and for Hindus it could some other diety, even in Pre-Islamic Arabia pagans called their many G-ds "Allah", we obviously don't agree that it's the same entity just the same title.

 

[Azmi]

Muslims are jihadis, left wing leaning activists/adivasis are Naxals, Tamils are anti national Dravidian thugs (on this thread itself), Christians are foreign agents, Communists are China's puppets on a mission to break India. I guess this is how Pakistan transformed into its current state. Well India has joined ranks with its neighbor, no more moral posturing from our side please.

Top post Sir. Thanks.

 

[Azmi]

Long Long History of Pakistan changing the Hindu names of cities, roads and streets.

https://scroll.in/article/898599/re...-all-women-who-have-come-out-against-mj-akbar


BJP is bad, but Mullahism is worse for sure.

 

[Azmi]

A perfect example of rise in radicalized Hinduism, where they believe it is imperative to change it to Hindu name, and to show their dominance by excluding and removing anything that has to do with Muslims.

A rise in radicalized extremists Hinduism is a biggest threat to India than any external threat.

Please understand, it is only the reaction of the Extremism of Muslims in Pakistan.

It was Pakistan who started to change the Hindu names of cities and places.

Minorities are living much more under fear in Pakistan as compared to India.

Lesson is not this that Hindu Extremism is bad or the Muslim Pakistani extremism is bad, but lesson is this that all kind of extremism is bad, either it is Muslim or Hindu.

 

[slipcatch]

Please understand, it is only the reaction of the Extremism of Muslims in Pakistan.

It was Pakistan who started to change the Hindu names of cities and places.

Minorities are living much more under fear in Pakistan as compared to India.

Lesson is not this that Hindu Extremism is bad or the Muslim Pakistani extremism is bad, but lesson is this that all kind of extremism is bad, either it is Muslim or Hindu.

explain.

no one would deny the rest but our radicalized Indian nationalists believe otherwise.

 

[PakLFC]

Why will anyone tell you anything? So much sense of entitlement that you take online forum discussions as an attempt of Indians trying to convince you. Your view point on India doesnot affect Indian muslims.

Who said that it does effect me?? What it does expose again is this nonsense of there being so much religious tolerance in India. Surely you realise that by "telling us" I mean telling the world how awesome Inidan secularism is. If it doesn't matter then why does your media do endless programmes on such subjects screaming at each other.

 

[Azmi]

explain.

I already posted the link that it is Pakistan who started this changing the Hindu names of cities and streets and areas.

https://scroll.in/article/898599/re...-all-women-who-have-come-out-against-mj-akbar

Actually, first it was Pakistan where the extremism got stronger, and what we see in India is mostly the reaction of this Pakistani Muslim Extremism.

If we make Islam and Sharia the supreme Law in Pakistan, and then start punishing the minorities in name of blasphemy, and also prohibit them one sided to preach their religion and criticize other religion (i.e. Islam), then surely in reaction other people in other countries will also kick out the Secularism and start dealing the Muslims the same way as Muslims are treating the minorities in their lands.

Muslims thought that Secularism is a weakness of other people in their countries, and thus they wanted to have Sharia for them, but Secularism for the others. These double standards are not going to be accepted by the world and off course sooner or later Muslims would have been paid the same way.

 

[cricketjoshila]

India should also change its name since India is a Greek word, y'all should also change the language Hindi since its a Persian word and the language has too many loan words from Arabic and Farsi.

We use Bharat as the name in our language. India is used in English.

Hindi has many regional variations.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Again missing context and perspective. Hindu texts historically have included such gems as:

• If a Shudra arrogantly presumes to preach religion to Brahmins, the king shall have poured burning oil in his mouth and ears
  [*]
• Any women violating duty and code of conduct towards her husband, is disgraced and becomes a patient of leprosy. After death, she enters womb of Jackal
• In case a women, proud of the greatness of her excellence or her relatives, violates her duty towards her husband, the King shall arrange to have her thrown before dogs at a public place.

Wouldn't you call any of those as indicative of bigotry?

Quote me the source.

 

[cricketjoshila]

That was not my point. I never implied that the invaders brought superior technology or art with them nor am I an apologist of muslim conquerors. My question was if you consider what evolved from the synthesis of these foreign influences as Indian heritage or something that needs to be revised to go back to a purer more 'Indian' culture.

You have to understand one thing, not one of the big muslim kings rulers or emperors were of subcontinental origin. Many rajputs punjabis sindhis bengalis etc converted to islam.Not one of them had a significant empire. If they had an empire it would be called indigenious.

Muslim invaders not on conquered.They let loose a religious war. Breaking temples. Making mosques out of them.Renaming hindu religious places. This is not part of any culture. You cannot have such monuments.

 

[slipcatch]

I already posted the link that it is Pakistan who started this changing the Hindu names of cities and streets and areas.

https://scroll.in/article/898599/re...-all-women-who-have-come-out-against-mj-akbar

Actually, first it was Pakistan where the extremism got stronger, and what we see in India is mostly the reaction of this Pakistani Muslim Extremism.

If we make Islam and Sharia the supreme Law in Pakistan, and then start punishing the minorities in name of blasphemy, and also prohibit them one sided to preach their religion and criticize other religion (i.e. Islam), then surely in reaction other people in other countries will also kick out the Secularism and start dealing the Muslims the same way as Muslims are treating the minorities in their lands.

Muslims thought that Secularism is a weakness of other people in their countries, and thus they wanted to have Sharia for them, but Secularism for the others. These double standards are not going to be accepted by the world and off course sooner or later Muslims would have been paid the same way.

Pakistan doesn’t claim to be secular, India does.

And we all know it isn’t as many of Indian radicalized extremists nationalists would like anyone to believe, only in case of optics, I.e Bollywood.

Stop blaming Pakistan for the rise of radicalized extremists nationalists Hindus. It has to with Muslim ruling over Hindus for years, now that low self esteem is coming to play after getting little bit richer.

These extremists allow to adhere to western culture but want their people to be extremists that has anything to do with Muslims of India.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Again missing context and perspective. Hindu texts historically have included such gems as:

• If a Shudra arrogantly presumes to preach religion to Brahmins, the king shall have poured burning oil in his mouth and ears
  [*]
• Any women violating duty and code of conduct towards her husband, is disgraced and becomes a patient of leprosy. After death, she enters womb of Jackal
• In case a women, proud of the greatness of her excellence or her relatives, violates her duty towards her husband, the King shall arrange to have her thrown before dogs at a public place.

Wouldn't you call any of those as indicative of bigotry?

And how doea this affect any muslim or anyone who isnt Hindu?

 

[enkidu_]

Long Long History of Pakistan changing the Hindu names of cities, roads and streets.

https://scroll.in/article/898599/re...-all-women-who-have-come-out-against-mj-akbar


BJP is bad, but Mullahism is worse for sure.

Decent attempt at whaboutism, but have you heard of a certain MS Golwalkar ? Not MS Dhoni, but MS Golwalkar, basically the ideological Pope of modern Hindu nationalism, with Savarkar. That's what he said in his famous book We or Our Nationhood Defined :

The non-Hindu people of Hindustan must either adopt Hindu culture and language, must learn and respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but of those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture ... In a word they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizens' rights.

https://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/2002/03/19/stories/2002031902641300.htm

Guess what ? He wrote it in the 30s, way before the formation of Pakistan.

You're criminally delusional if you think that Hindu nationalists have waited Pakistan to entertain the idea of "reclaiming their (sic) heritage". It's their very DNA, they're into a vendetta against the "conquerors", that is, Muslims but also Christians, and they'll find an obscure Hindu connection to everything, from the Taj Mahal to byriani, in order to claim it as some 5000 (the most optimistic bet on millions) years old "Hindu civilization". It has nothing to do with PK.

In fact as an Islamic state Pakistan has been too soft on the idolaters' heritage, if anything !

 

[Pakistanian]

I already posted the link that it is Pakistan who started this changing the Hindu names of cities and streets and areas.

https://scroll.in/article/898599/re...-all-women-who-have-come-out-against-mj-akbar

Actually, first it was Pakistan where the extremism got stronger, and what we see in India is mostly the reaction of this Pakistani Muslim Extremism.

If we make Islam and Sharia the supreme Law in Pakistan, and then start punishing the minorities in name of blasphemy, and also prohibit them one sided to preach their religion and criticize other religion (i.e. Islam), then surely in reaction other people in other countries will also kick out the Secularism and start dealing the Muslims the same way as Muslims are treating the minorities in their lands.

Muslims thought that Secularism is a weakness of other people in their countries, and thus they wanted to have Sharia for them, but Secularism for the others. These double standards are not going to be accepted by the world and off course sooner or later Muslims would have been paid the same way.

That article is written by a predator.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Decent attempt at whaboutism, but have you heard of a certain MS Golwalkar ? Not MS Dhoni, but MS Golwalkar, basically the ideological Pope of modern Hindu nationalism, with Savarkar. That's what he said in his famous book We or Our Nationhood Defined :



https://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/2002/03/19/stories/2002031902641300.htm

Guess what ? He wrote it in the 30s, way before the formation of Pakistan.

You're criminally delusional if you think that Hindu nationalists have waited Pakistan to entertain the idea of "reclaiming their (sic) heritage". It's their very DNA, they're into a vendetta against the "conquerors", that is, Muslims but also Christians, and they'll find an obscure Hindu connection to everything, from the Taj Mahal to byriani, in order to claim it as some 5000 (the most optimistic bet on millions) years old "Hindu civilization". It has nothing to do with PK.

In fact as an Islamic state Pakistan has been too soft on the idolaters' heritage, if anything !

Yes he wrote this in 1930s when Muslims of british India has started asking for a separate nation. So while muslim league was looking after Muslim interests and Congress was into secularism, another organisation was trying to look after hindu interests.

 

[Pakistanian]

We use Bharat as the name in our language. India is used in English.

Hindi has many regional variations.

just go by "bharat" officially. Iran used to be called persia officially in English until the Shah of Iran demanded every country in the world to officially address his country as Iran and not Persia, it was a matter of pride for them and they succeeded. India should do the same, require global govts and the media to address them as Bharat.

 

[yasir]

Prayag in Sanskrit means place for sacrifice, in reference to the Hindu belief that the creator of the universe, Brahma, made his first offering at the area in the city where the Ganges and Yamuna rivers meet.

This sound so dump and full of **. Who he was giving offering to?? - Now I don't get the concept of Sacrifice when it come to Hindu culture, what is the purpose of these offering?? - BTW: What exactly was offered? - We don't know why he is offering, to whom and what...How can you give this kind of non-sense national coverage...Extreme right is getting stronger every election cycle in India, so much for the secular democracy

 

[Itachi]

This sound so dump and full of **. Who he was giving offering to?? - Now I don't get the concept of Sacrifice when it come to Hindu culture, what is the purpose of these offering?? - BTW: What exactly was offered? - We don't know why he is offering, to whom and what...How can you give this kind of non-sense national coverage...Extreme right is getting stronger every election cycle in India, so much for the secular democracy

Its disappointed to see a Muslim degrading the belief of a different religion. This is one aspect where I always find hard to grasp. If you state you will respect the kafirs but will use the terns above for their belief, this just shows two face.

Coming to the thread, I studied two years of Sanskrit in class IX and X. in sloks, we were taught prayag as a meeting place(varified with a professor yesterday). Its the first time I heard a different meaning. I guess it has multiple meanings depending upon the context.

 

[Azmi]

That article is written by a predator.

What does it matter who wrote it?
The real thing that matters is if the Truth has been written or not.
Just go and check yourself if Pakistan changed the names of the areas and roads and cities or not. All the informations in this article are 100% correct.

https://scroll.in/article/898599/re...-all-women-who-have-come-out-against-mj-akbar

If you find even a single falsehood in this informations, then please come here and indicate us.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Quote me the source.

You can google it and get the sources in about three seconds. I could do it for you, but my intent was not to start a separate discussion within this thread, but to give some context to your contention that Mughal rulers were bigots - a 21st century term which could also be applied to Hindu rulers of the time if proper context was considered.

 

[JaDed]

Posts on this thread indicate how extremism has become a way of life for rabid Hindutva supporters. Such things are getting normalized now, in the future these acts will set a precedent for further bigotry and discrimination. Lines that were respected even as recently as 2013 are now being crossed because right wing fundamentalists are emboldened and there is no going back. Sanghis on twitter/FB are today targeting Akbar, an emperor who was probably the most tolerant and respectful of Hindu faith. He even started his own religion, he wasn't the Aurangzeb kind. Yet look at how he is being vilified in today's India to spew bile on our medieval past.

Anyone who raises a caution to the dark path our country is heading towards is being treated as an enemy of the state. Muslims are jihadis, left wing leaning activists/adivasis are Naxals, Tamils are anti national Dravidian thugs (on this thread itself), Christians are foreign agents, Communists are China's puppets on a mission to break India. I guess this is how Pakistan transformed into its current state. Well India has joined ranks with its neighbor, no more moral posturing from our side please.

Called the Dravidian party ,Dravidian things , lol how did you combine posts of Riddle and mine lol ,victim mentality is apparent.

 

[Jin Chacha]

You have to understand one thing, not one of the big muslim kings rulers or emperors were of subcontinental origin. Many rajputs punjabis sindhis bengalis etc converted to islam.Not one of them had a significant empire. If they had an empire it would be called indigenious.

Muslim invaders not on conquered.They let loose a religious war. Breaking temples. Making mosques out of them.Renaming hindu religious places. This is not part of any culture. You cannot have such monuments.

The problem arises when you mix military conquest and politics with culture. These monuments may be the legacy of barbaric military conquests but they also symbolize the syncretic Indo-persian and Indo-Turkic culture that at least in my opinion is an integral part of Indian heritage. It is important to disown one and not the other. Unfortunately, what is happening now seems to be a blanket condemnation of anything associated with 'foreign' influences. What one defines as foreign is a very slippery slope and leads to certain groups of people being perceived as less 'Indian' than others. It is a bit like what happened in Pakistan. We disowned our heritage when we removed any mention of pre-Islamic Indian empires from our history books. It seems India right now is disowning everything that happened in a thousand years of muslim rule as a 'foreign' influence. That is just my two cents as an outsider.

 

[JaDed]

Hope he doesnt mean it. What do Hindus in Pakistan have to do with India's communal actions?

India on the other hand is doing some ridiculous things to antagonise muslims. Changing names of these places wont achieve anything. Its not productive in any way, its not beneficial to the society or economy. I think even the most patriotic of Indians would agree that its just an attempt of political point scoring. Its a dangerous thing.

Already said that in posts above BJP as usual is being useless, surprising to see people support this kind of irrelevant nonsense.

 

[JaDed]

In logic of BJP the whole of India seems to be holy.land of Hindus lol ,am glad Niagara falls was not in India if not there would be something associated to it as well.

Utter nonsense that religion has taken birth only in Asia ,with no theory to prove any of these magical holy Land concepts.

 

[CricketCartoons]

You can google it and get the sources in about three seconds. I could do it for you, but my intent was not to start a separate discussion within this thread, but to give some context to your contention that Mughal rulers were bigots - a 21st century term which could also be applied to Hindu rulers of the time if proper context was considered.

Mughal rulers with the exception of aurangzeb were not any more bigots than other rulers at the time. but our dude aurangzeb was a bigot, not just by the standards of today, but by the standards of his contemporaries, his parents and grandparents.

 

[JaDed]

Not a big fan of these name changes . it helps no and costs money which can be of use elsewhere !!

Exactly and what imo we need are different time zones though, at least 3 I would say rather than name change of cities.

 

[Azmi]

Pakistan doesn’t claim to be secular, India does.

This is exactly the point that I am making.

These are the Double Standards of the Muslims, where they want to suppress the minorities in their lands by imposing the religious laws upon them, which discriminate them and make Muslims superiors, while making the minorities the 2nd class citizens.

You have to understand that you could not play this one sided game without having the reaction and the consequences, where you claim full rights to practice Tableegh and conversion to Islam and equal rights in non-Muslim countries, but you deny others the same right in your Muslim countries.

Biggest hatred comes when every Pakistani Muslim is crying for death to Secularism and imposition of Sharia laws in Pakistan, but then we see that every Indian Muslim crying for Secularism in India. Even the religious Deoband and Barailvies and Ahlehadith in India are crying for Secularism and equal rights for Muslims.

Stop blaming Pakistan for the rise of radicalized extremists nationalists Hindus. It has to with Muslim ruling over Hindus for years, now that low self esteem is coming to play after getting little bit richer.

Off course it has to do with the Muslims ruling Hindus in the Past, and the Indian Muslims still considering Ghaznavi as Hero and celebrating his crimes against the humanity and looting of Hindus, making their women slaves and destroying their gods and mandirs.

But still you are unable to see the full picture, which also included the recent wave of Islamization in Pakistan, or even in whole world.

Had Pakistan practised Secularism too and gave equal rights to the minorities, then it would have become extremely difficult for BJP to rise to the power.

It was the Indian Secularism which kept the Hindu extremists aside for a long period of time to come to the power and become popular.

It is not only the history, but also the present situation which all is adding up the fuel and causing the hatred and giving rise to the extremism.

If you don't show the double behaviour, then it is very easy to understand when 90% Muslims in Pakistan demand Religious State, then you should not have a problem if 90% Hindus also start demanding the Hindu State and kicking out of Secularism which only had been abused and misused by the Muslims.

These extremists allow to adhere to western culture but want their people to be extremists that has anything to do with Muslims of India.

Actually not. This new wave of Hinduism also trying to prevent the western influence too, but they don't have enough success against the Western influence.

Reason is very simple.

It is your blunder when you compare the Secular West with the Islamic Sharia governing Pakistan. There is nothing common in them.

Secular West gives equal rights to the Hindus and equal love and respect to preach and practice their religion. There is no hatred in the West against the Hinduism. And there is no FEAR of dominance with use of power or sword.

But Religious Muslims are all opposite of the Western values. It starts with the hatred, and it ends in the fears.

Why then you wonder if similar strong reaction has been showed against the Islam, and not against the Secular Western values?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Mughal rulers with the exception of aurangzeb were not any more bigots than other rulers at the time. but our dude aurangzeb was a bigot, not just by the standards of today, but by the standards of his contemporaries, his parents and grandparents.

Quite possibly true, but no one mentioned Aurangzeb, the term bigot was loosely applied to all Muslim invaders. I am sure you could justifiably describe them all as bigots if you have a mind to, I was merely pointing out that many Hindu rulers of the time could also be described as bigots.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

This debate is pointless.

Unless India is an indigenous part of Pakistan, we shouldnt worry about what is happening in India.

If however, we are worrying, using the religion card and saying Muslims must be suffering in India then lets sweep our own house and stop the suffering of Muslims of Pakistan before worrying about fellow brothers 3000 km away, noble as the intention may be.

 

[Azmi]

Decent attempt at whaboutism,

Yes. This whataboutism is a reality.
While your behaviour of denying the "Reaction by others" in name of excuse of whataboutism would be a mistake.

but have you heard of a certain MS Golwalkar ? Not MS Dhoni, but MS Golwalkar, basically the ideological Pope of modern Hindu nationalism, with Savarkar. That's what he said in his famous book We or Our Nationhood Defined :

https://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/2002/03/19/stories/2002031902641300.htm

Guess what ? He wrote it in the 30s, way before the formation of Pakistan.

History of this tussle didn't start in 1947, but it goes much beyond that.

And it was the the same "Reaction" in 1930 too. But you deny this Reaction today, and that is why unable to understand this reality of reaction in 1930 too. You want to play only one sided game, while World is not ready for your Double Standards.

These are not only Hindus, but whole world is feeling the offence due to your double standards, and whole world is giving reaction against it. It may be weaker than India in the Secular West at moment, but for sure sooner or later you will face the same reaction.

You're criminally delusional if you think that Hindu nationalists have waited Pakistan to entertain the idea of "reclaiming their (sic) heritage". It's their very DNA, they're into a vendetta against the "conquerors", that is, Muslims but also Christians, and they'll find an obscure Hindu connection to everything, from the Taj Mahal to byriani, in order to claim it as some 5000 (the most optimistic bet on millions) years old "Hindu civilization". It has nothing to do with PK.

Sir, please look into the mirror before talking about the DNA of the others.

Please look in the mirror and tell us if your DNA is any different than the Hindu DNA? Would you be Ok if a Hindu conqueror would have raped your women and did all that what Ghaznavi did with Hindus?

We all are humans, and we all have the same DNA, and we all react the same way.

And off course the raise of Islamization in Pakistan is also one of the reason for the raise of Hinduism in India. This is a complete picture where past and present all are playing the role.

It is impossible that in Pakistan Muslims cry for Sharia, but in India same Muslims start crying for Secularism.

In fact as an Islamic state Pakistan has been too soft on the idolaters' heritage, if anything !

Really?
This is the peak of Double Standards, if anything!

 

[Azmi]

This debate is pointless.

Unless India is an indigenous part of Pakistan, we shouldnt worry about what is happening in India.

If however, we are worrying, using the religion card and saying Muslims must be suffering in India then lets sweep our own house and stop the suffering of Muslims of Pakistan before worrying about fellow brothers 3000 km away, noble as the intention may be.

Your intentions are noble and you indeed tried to do the justice.

I think otherwise, and we have to be concerned for the Humans globally. If Rohingiyas are killed in Burma, then off course we have to feel the pain. If extremist Hindus are burning the Muslims in name of respect of cow, then indeed we are offended as human beings.

But the problem occurs when we play only one sided i.e. we have the right to criticize the Hindu extremism, but others are not allowed to what is happening in our country and our laws.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Quite possibly true, but no one mentioned Aurangzeb, the term bigot was loosely applied to all Muslim invaders. I am sure you could justifiably describe them all as bigots if you have a mind to, I was merely pointing out that many Hindu rulers of the time could also be described as bigots.

Who was less of a bigot and who was more is less important than who were at the receiving end. Churchill was a bigot and racist yet he is a hero for native brits as they were never at the wrong receiving end. Hindu communities were at the wrong end of many muslim invaders, so it is not important or consolation if hindu rulers were bigots too..let those whose communities were wrong by those hindu rulers raise their voice, i have no argument against them.

 

[Azmi]

Fight between the Secular Forces and Hindu Extremist Forces in India:

Most of us don't have the ability to see the situation in India in the right prospectives. We consider India as only Hindu extremist country. But this is wrong, while there is very severe war is going on between Secular forces and the extremist Hindu forces in India.

Secular forces talk about equal Human rights, irrespective of the religion and race. They are the ones who care about the Human Rights.

But they have been badly attacked by the extremist Hindu forces in India. They have been termed as Traitors of India. The religious Hindus have taken the monopoly upon who is loyal to India and who is a traitor.

This is same in Pakistan too, where all the Secularists and Human Rights organisations are blamed to be the traitors of Pakistan. Here too the religious establishment has taken the THEYKA of distributing the certificates of loyalty.

Hindu extremists have started hating the Secular forces in India at the same level as they hate the Muslims, while they are the biggest obstacle in making India the 2nd Pakistan.

Hindu extremists are abusing the Bollywood and blaming it to be traitor to India.

All those Secularists and left wingers who raise their voice for the Human Rights are declared as Naxals in order to discredit them. While in Pakistan all the Secularists and Human Right activists are blamed to be the Agents of the foreign powers.

 

[BlackShadow]

I am amazed at the response this thread got. Topics like "Children going to school" barely get any attention from posters, while an Indian city's ancient Hindu name being restored is somehow a matter of concern for Pakistanis. These misplaced priorities are the reason why every regional country is leapfrogging Pakistan both economically and in human development.

 

[LastManstanding]

You claimed you were glad to see Hindus being unapologetic for a change, i.e., most people would intepret that as usually Hindus ARE apologetic. Among Muslims an apologetic Muslim is one who is considered weak in faith and sees their religion through the eyes of the non-Muslim. The opposite of that would be the Taliban who are unashamed and strident Muslims.

Do you understand the link now?

So, according to you all the peace loving Muslims who claim ISIS and Taliban aren't following the right Islam and Islam is a religion of peace are weak in their faith and don't represent true Muslims?

 

[RogerBao]

Allah is a word for God, Christian Arabs also use the word "Allah". We don't have to agree with who God is but the word is the same. Allah and God are interchangeable. For Muslims, Allah is the God of Abraham and for Hindus it could some other diety, even in Pre-Islamic Arabia pagans called their many G-ds "Allah", we obviously don't agree that it's the same entity just the same title.

Allah is the specific name of the God of Islam. It is not a generic term for God. The shahada is lla (No) ilaha (God) illa'llah (but Allah). The Arab Christians may have used Allah in the Bible translation due to their own cultural reasons etc. For instance, in Malaysia, it is banned by law for Non-Muslims to use the word Allah for God in their place of worship. As for the pagan Arabs, they worshiped Lah the moon God prevalent in the middle east at that time.

 

[Azmi]

Allah is the specific name of the God of Islam. It is not a generic term for God. The shahada is lla (No) ilaha (God) illa'llah (but Allah). The Arab Christians may have used Allah in the Bible translation due to their own cultural reasons etc. For instance, in Malaysia, it is banned by law for Non-Muslims to use the word Allah for God in their place of worship. As for the pagan Arabs, they worshiped Lah the moon God prevalent in the middle east at that time.

Malaysian court gave the judgement totally against the Justice.

From where did come the name Abdullah in pre pre Islamic time (the father of prophet Muhammad)?


Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[20] The corresponding Aramaic form is Elah (אלה), but its emphatic state is Elaha (אלהא). It is written as ܐܠܗܐ (ʼĔlāhā) in Biblical Aramaic and ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ (ʼAlâhâ) in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply "God".[21] Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural (but functional singular) form Elohim (אלהים‬), but more rarely it also uses the singular form Eloah (אלוהּ‬).[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

 

[RogerBao]

From where did come the name Abdullah in pre pre Islamic time (the father of prophet Muhammad)?

I'm not sure about that but remember most of the so called "Muslim" names today are originally of pagan Arab & pre-Islamic Persian origin.

Cognates of the name "Allāh" exist in other Semitic languages, including Hebrew and Aramaic.[20] The corresponding Aramaic form is Elah (אלה), but its emphatic state is Elaha (אלהא). It is written as ܐܠܗܐ (ʼĔlāhā) in Biblical Aramaic and ܐܲܠܵܗܵܐ (ʼAlâhâ) in Syriac as used by the Assyrian Church, both meaning simply "God".[21] Biblical Hebrew mostly uses the plural (but functional singular) form Elohim (אלהים‬), but more rarely it also uses the singular form Eloah (אלוהּ‬).[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah

Yes , ilaha/elaha is in the shahada for the word God. The is no ilaha other than Allah. Allah is unique here.