• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
India Be Named As Bharat/hindustan
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->So, Hindu civilisation's geography is that "greater India". It is our historic country. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

First of all, 'Hindu' isn't a civilisation, neither is Christianity, or Islam or any other of the worlds religions.

The Civilization of India / Bharat are the 'Indians' (In its english word at least). An Indian may believe in hinduism, they may also believe in buddhism, sikhism, or jainism, all of which were also founded in India. This doesnt make any of these religions a civilisation, people of the same civilization can believe in many different religions, and this is also why I dislike the name Hindustan. An Indian may be Hindu. They may also be Sikh, Buddhist, Christian or Muslim, or Secular, and that is what I love about being Indian that in our belief, there is supposed to be no discrimination against other cultures.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The ideology of Bharata... mythology".

Why does christoism get the benefit of the doubt<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I am not giving any benefit of the doubt to christianity, and I do not believe in any of it either, nor in Islam (I am secular). Christianity was founded in 0 BC. The name India is ultimately based on the Indus / Sindhu river which was named in 4000 BC, maybe even earlier, and 'India' is based from the Greek and Persian civilizations. Christian religion has played no part in the name India.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Good that you qualified it with a "you consider". It's a free world, one can consider as one chooses to. Opinions are free. Opinions need have no relation to facts though.
You can imagine whatever you want as myth and imagine whatever it is you want to be factual. Doesn't make it so, of course.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

No it doesnt make it so, that is why I clearly seperate what I consider fact from personal belief, so that people do not confuse the two <!--emo&Smile--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> . In that respect, it is also only your personal opinion that India, or Bharat should be called Bharatavarsha:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Personally</b>, I would like Bharatavarsha to be used more often and ideally to replace the common use of "India" altogether<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You also said:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Can't properly explain it

Meaning that you actually dont know why Bharatavarsha should be used more often, and that it is only your personal opinion that it should be.

Bharatavarsha is not the official name in any part of India, it is only your opinion that it should be. There is no factual evidence for your claim that Bharat is in fact called Bharatavarsha, when even in the primaray language of India, Hindi, India is called Bhārata Gaṇarājya, which is shortened to Bharat, not Bharatavarsha. It is simply your personal choice and opinion to call India Bharatavarsha, just as it may be someone elses choice to call it India. It is just as incorrect in Hindi to call Bhārata Gaṇarājya, Bharatavarsha instead, just as wrong as it is to call it India.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong on two counts. The word India originates from the native Hindu word Sindhu for our River. Why stop at the point of India's etymology where Sindhu was turned to Indus and declare that "therefore Indus was the originating word for India"? No, it wasn't. If we hadn't called the River Sindhu, no one would have later come to call our country India<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

The name India may ultimately have been derived from Sindhu in the long run from translation, after translation, after translation, but not directly derived. The name India came directly from King Alfred's translation of the Orosius:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The name India was known in Anglo-Saxon, and was used in King Alfred's translation of Orosius. In Middle English, the name was, under French influence, replaced by Ynde or Inde, which entered Early Modern English as Indie. The name India then came back to English usage from the 17th century onwards, and may be due to the influence of Latin, or Spanish or Portuguese.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Note that although the Orosius is a Christian book, the word India was created simply from a literal translation of the text, and entered the English language. India is only the English name since the 17'th century, one would have to read the Orosius themselves to find the actual word that the translation was based on.

India is just an English word used in the English language that was first used by King Alfred. I am agreeing with you that in India, the name should be Bharat, and I also call it Bharat when speaking in Gujerati, but the name India is just the English word for Bharat, but I disagree that it should be called Bharatavarsha because as you have said, this is only based on your personal opinion.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't completely mind the use of India in English all that much, but have noticed how the use of "India" makes some other people so smug even though they have no reason to be<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

As you say here, India is really a word that is only meant to be used in English. No one when speaking in Hindi / Gujerati etc should really be using the word India. They dont use it to sound smug, they use it because it has become a common slang, and as I was trying to give examples of English words being used as slang in Gujerati.

Not everyone uses the slang words and some people can speak fluently and properly in their language, but I am saying that using the word India when speaking in an Indian language is an example of slang. The only person I have ever heard that could speak Gujerati without any mistakes or use of slang was my Gujerati teacher. Every Gujerati speaking family member and friend always make common mistakes, like calling India Bharat, and I have tried to correct them and tell them 'You should be saying Bharat, not India', but they dont care about it. There is nothing more you can do to change the words a person speaks if you have already tried to teach them the correct usage. Obviously, if I had written India instead of Bharat in my Gujerati exam, I would have lost a mark.

I will stop trying to talk about how i 'think' Bhartavarsha originated, because I am making mistakes at that, and I cant read the sanskrit / hindi writing that this information is based on. but I am sure that my description of the word India is correct, but I will gladly accept Bharatavarsha as the name of India if you manage to convince the Indian government to change the name to Bharatavarsha <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
...vAgdevI vasudhA tIvrA
mahAbhadrA mahaphalA
bhogadA <b>bhAratI</b> bhAmA
govindA gomatI shivA
jaTilA vindhyavAsAcha

when we remember mother saraswati we also recall her by another beautiful name ... bhAratI
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I will stop trying to talk about how i 'think' Bhartavarsha originated, because I am making mistakes at that<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Your mistakes are not only limited to that, it seems:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The name India came directly from King Alfred's translation of the Orosius<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India is just an <b>English word</b> used in the English language that was <b>first</b> used by King Alfred.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->No.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India and the Greek World; A study in the transmission of culture.
Prof. Jean Sedlar
The University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, PA

<b>The name of India, so far as is known, first appears in Greek literature in the 5th century B. C. in the works of Hekataios and Herodotos.</b> The word is derived from the Indus river (Sanskrit sindhumeans "river"), and in the Greek as well as the Persian language 'India" originally meant only the Indus region, which then belonged to the Persian empire. Herodotos, however, already used the term in a wider sense to denote the whole country; and classical Greek usage followed his example.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As far as the reference to it by the Greeks and Parsa is concerned, the above quoteblock is right: first appearance of name as "India" in Greek lit was in 5th bce, which Greeks themselves got from Parsa where it existed earlier still.
So it's not from some medieval christo-European king. But as we will see, the long-lasting christo-imposed illiteracy in Europe may have made them believe they invented the word.

I notice that your issue with the legitimate usage of "Bharatavarsha" for our geography (on the grounds that it covers more area than the current region) does not seem to have extended to the - in your <i>opinion</i> 'English' word - "India". Your being so familiar with christoconfusions on the name of India, I would have thought you to be better acquainted than myself on how, in the late christo-western perspective, "India" referred to a lot more than just our subcontinent:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->C.B. Firth, in An Introduction to Indian Church History, writes, "It is no uncommon thing to find [ancient writers] using [the name India] of countries such as Ethiopia, Arabia or Afghanistan. Indeed, except for those who had reason to be acquainted with our India, 'India' was a vague term which might stand for almost any religion beyond the Empire's southeastern frontiers.... "<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here Koenraad Elst also explains how, to christo Europe, Japan was also part of the vague landmass tagged as India:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->8 In Roman days and long afterwards, "India" was practically synonymous with "Asia", from Ethiopia to Japan.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->First of all, 'Hindu' isn't a civilisation, neither is Christianity, or Islam or any other of the worlds religions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Hindu Dharma is a civilisational ethos. So are the other Natural Traditions of the world.
From Hindu Dharma came Hindu civilisation: all Hindu arts and sciences - including dance forms like Bharatanatyam, the traditional Hindu music of N and S, and martial arts like Kalaripayatt - and all Hindu dynasties. Bauddha civilisation also spans a great geography (of course, there is partial overlap with Hindu geography as often happens with Dharmic and other Natural Traditions). Similarly Jaina civilisational ethos has brought forth literature, kings, dynasties, sciences, architecture of its own. Sikh Kingdoms and accomplishments there were also. Sikh Dharma has not yet had a long enough history to come to the same scale. These are all subsets of the overall Dharmic civilisation that spans more than Bharatavarsha (because Hindu and Bauddha Dharma expanded beyond, for example to southeastern Asia, central Asia, western and eastern Asia).

Christoislamism is a terrorist ideology, a mind-virus.
To list these terrorisms in your statement as being an equivalent to the world's Natural Traditions is to be an apologist for historic and continuing genocide.

Christoislamiterrorism is known for destroying civilisations (for instance, what christianism did to Hellenic civilisation, what islamism did to Parshya civilisation). So yes, I agree with that part of your statement: these terrorisms are not civilisations at all.

Predictably, christoislamism has not contributed anything towards our civilisation. (Unless your oh-so-objectively 'secular' idea of 'civilisation' includes such christian practises like christoislamic destructions of Indian Temples, the documented large-scale islamic genocides of Hindus and Buddhists, the christo Inquisitions in Goa, or the christo-mutilation on Hindus practised by the likes of Vasco da Gama - see Richard Hall's book and see Sanjay Subramaniam's book based off of Portuguese records, or the chopping off of fingers of Hindu AyurVeda practitioners and of Hindu weavers as carried out by the christobritish.)
These are all part of the ancient christian 'culture' continuum you know. Just like all christianism did for the GrecoRoman civilisations was to destroy their libraries, destroy the widespread Roman schools and send the region into an illiteracy lasting over a millennium, and of course put the traditional Greco-Romans in concentration camps:
In Skythopolis, Syria, christians organise the first death camps for the torture and execution of arrested Gentiles from all around the Empire.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->^That's right: the christians started these camps long before the christian nazis of the 20th century, and before the recent christian concentration camps for the inconvertible traditional tribes of SE Asia, Africa and S America. The early christoterrorists already developed this christian culture/technique for genociding people of Natural Traditions.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Roman municipalities supplied free elementary instruction for the children of all workers. Anywhere you went, in a suburb of Rome or a small Italian town, you would see the teacher, in the porch of a house perhaps, teaching the children how to write on wax-faced tablets. Practically every Roman worker could read and write by the year 380 A.D., when Christianity began to have real power. By 480 nearly every school in the Empire was destroyed. By 580, and until 1780 at least, from ninety to ninety-five percent of the people of Europe were illiterate and densely ignorant. That is the undisputed historical record of Christianity as regards education.
-- The Story Of Religious Controversy, by Joseph McCabe<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Joseph McCabe is a famous historian who knows a lot about christianism. He was well-versed in Latin and Greek, and was formerly a catholic monk before he realised what a terrorist fraud christianism was.

Edited to add more links
Continued from previous.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I am not giving any benefit of the doubt to christianity, and I do not believe in any of it either, nor in Islam (I am secular).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh no. No no. Not the "Look at me, I am an impartial observer" routine. Good grief.

There is nothing secular in declaring that christoislamism on one hand, and Dharmic religions+other Natural Traditions on the other, are "all the same". That's just the same old dawaganda. Since when are nazis the same as their Jewish and Roma victims?
Anyone who claims they are objective or secular and then declares it is all "equal-equal" is a fraud. How can anyone consider the christonazis - who genocided the native Americans of N and S America - as being on an equal footing with the native Americans who developed their wholesome civilisational ethos?
One can only suppose two things about people who thus declare themselves 'secular' and who moreover do so by using precisely the sort of ridiculous statement that instantly undermines their declaration. Either one must be a total ignorant to take such an insupportable position (playing at being the 'objective secular') on a topic they obviously know nothing about, or they must be filled with that type of deliberate moral ambivalence about everything except their own ideology (whether disclosed/undisclosed) as is exhibited frequently by the communistas. There is nothing remotely objective about this position.
Either things <i>are</i> factually equal <i>or</i> they are not. In this case: christoislamism (terrorism) has nothing whatsoever to do with Natural Traditions let alone being equal to them in any sense.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The [Catholic] Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out; by this means they secured that these infants went to heaven."
-- Bertrand Russell<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Indian chief Hatuey fled with his people but was captured and burned alive. As
"they were tying him to the stake a Franciscan friar urged him to take Jesus to his heart so that his soul might go to heaven, rather than descend into hell. Hatuey replied that if heaven was where the Christians went, he would rather go to hell."
What happened to his people was described by an eyewitness:
"The Spaniards found pleasure in inventing all kinds of odd cruelties ... They built a long gibbet, long enough for the toes to touch the ground to prevent strangling, and hanged thirteen [natives] at a time in honor of Christ Our Saviour and the twelve Apostles... then, straw was wrapped around their torn bodies and they were burned alive." [SH72]
-- American Holocaust, by D.Stannard<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Did you read stuff on this forum before you decided to join? I don't think anyone here is a faux-secular (<- that's what people are who attempt to put christoislamiterrorism alongside valid Natural Traditions). If you had read pages here before you joined, you would know why and in what context the idea of "secularism" originated, and why it is not applicable to Dharmic or Natural Traditionalist society. Hauma Hamiddha's posts and IF front page articles went through this already. See no need to re-open a dialogue on a topic that was already discussed in-depth and on which a clear understanding was achieved. Unless of course you bring new and profound insights on it (though none of these were presented in your above posts)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I would like Bharatavarsha to be used more often and ideally to replace the common use of "India" altogether<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You also said:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Can't properly explain it<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Meaning that you actually dont know why Bharatavarsha should be used more often, and that it is only your personal opinion that it should be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Now, now, don't need to compound the many mistakes you've already made with yet another one.
My English may not be good (who cares), but what I wrote says (and upon re-reading it, it's still clear): "I couldn't <i>explain</i> why I thought it would be better for Bharatavarsha to replace the common use of India".
And then, immediately after writing that, I found and gave a more tangible example for clarification: the post-independence adoption of the word 'India' into Dharmics' usage as a visible manifestation of our <i>partial</i> independence. Also, that post was directed at Bodhi who may perhaps know me well enough by now to try to guess what I could be intending with my incomplete/non-thorough reply.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't completely mind the use of India in English all that much, but have noticed how the use of "India" makes some other people so smug even though they have no reason to be<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->As you say here, India is really a word that is only meant to be used in English.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Can't make out how you made yet another wrong inference concerning what I wrote.
What I wrote, rephrased: "I have noticed how our using the word India makes people - who have *no reason* to be smug - smug". How you managed to translate that into my implying that the word "is only meant to be used in English" is beyond me. One mistake may be owing to an accident, two to being in a hurry. Three can perhaps still be attributed to carelessness. But four big mistakes (in your post there's <i>at least</i> that many) seems to imply some inability to identify or at least edit out mistakes.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I will gladly accept Bharatavarsha as the name of India if you manage to convince the Indian government to change the name to Bharatavarsha <!--emo&:lol:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='laugh.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Bharatam is already India's official name.
Can't imagine anyone ever lying awake about what you or any other pseudo-secular may choose to call it today or in any hypothetical 'one fine day' scenario.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Sep 11 2008, 07:01 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Sep 11 2008, 07:01 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->American Holocaust

Thank you for inadvertently recommending me a good book. As I was reading the synopsis of the book on Amazon, what struck me was how modern followers of Jesusism have completely twisted the meaning of events in history.

If you saw that Jesusism propaganda movie, Apocalypto (by drunkard and anti-semite Mel Gibson), (SPOILER) the fugitive Jaguar Paw is timely saved in the end from the evil Mayans by the newly arrived Spanish bearing crosses.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->4. The Spanish arrive as if to save the Maya from themselves. After enduring two hours of horrific violence, in the last minutes of the film, we witness the miraculous rescue of the film's hero Jaguar Paw from his stalkers by the appearance of Spanish galleons off the coast. This short, final scene shows dour Spaniards approaching the mainland in boats bearing Christian crosses across still water. After forcing his audience to endure two hours of horrific violence, Gibson uses this placid scene allow the movie-goer a sigh of relief in the hopes that these European Civilizers have arrived to make order out of the Maya mayhem. By ending his film there, Gibson ignores the far greater genocide to befall the Maya. In fact, within a hundred years of conquest, the Spanish were responsible for killing between 90 and 95 percent of the Maya population through disease, warfare, starvation, and enslavement.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Pandyan+Sep 11 2008, 07:08 PM-->QUOTE(Pandyan @ Sep 11 2008, 07:08 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Sep 11 2008, 07:01 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Husky @ Sep 11 2008, 07:01 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->American Holocaust<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you for inadvertently recommending me a good book. As I was reading the synopsis of the book on Amazon, what struck me was how modern followers of Jesusism have completely twisted the meaning of events in history.[right][snapback]87871[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Happy to have been of any help.

I copied the quotation from http://freetruth.50webs.org/A4a.htm which links to The Christian Heritage site. The full reference of the book given is
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->D.E. Stannard, American Holocaust. Columbus and the Conquest of the New World, New York: Oxford University 1992.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Another book referenced by the Christian Heritage site was an 80s book "The Missionaries" by Lewis, a journalist.
He wrote about the christian genocide of native Americans of S America closer to our own times, upto late 70s and early 80s. But this silent christian massacre of SA native Americans is ongoing in spite of Lewis and others having exposed it.

Here, this page has excerpts from the last-mentioned book, and the proper reference:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->N.Lewis, The Missionaries, New York: McGraw-Hill 1988.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now that the discussion is already diverted, ...here is more.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Guacanagarí had tried to protect the

Christians, but they'd abused the Taíno

people until Caonabó,

"Golden House," cacique of the golden

mountains of Cibao, the most powerful

chief on Haiti, came down and

killed them all.

Caonabó was held in awe

by the Taínos. By blood half Carib,

the Taínos' only tribal enemies,

he had risen through sheer ability

to the top of the Taíno world.

Columbus sent a delegation with gifts

to Caonabó, led

by the intrepid Lt. Ojeda, already famed

as the first to enforce Columbus' decree

to cut off the ears or nose of any Indian

stealing Spanish property.

In his village,

high in the mountains of Cibao, Ojeda

met Caonabó, who wore a crown "with wings

on its sides like a shield and golden eyes

as large as silver cups." Ojeda told him

that Columbus offered peace,

if only he would come down

to the settlement to talk. Caonabó, despite

everything, responded, "Yes,

if Guamiquiná wants peace,

I will make peace. I ask only one thing:

to be given

the Christians' church bell as a sign."

So they started down.

Stopping at a river bank, Ojeda held up a

set of manacles to Caonabó, and said,

"These are ceremonial bracelets,

worn only by kings on horseback:

Lord Columbus

has sent them for you to wear

on this great occasion."

So Caonabó became the first Indian

to ever ride

one of these magic creatures called horse.

Caonabó was tied to the saddle behind Ojeda,

the chains locked on his wrists and ankles;

Ojeda suddenly spurred the horse

across the river, away from the startled

Indian delegation, and hardly stopped until

they reached the settlement, where the greatest

chief of Haiti, instead of being given

the church bell, was thrown at Columbus'

feet, then chained on the porch

of Columbus' house

on the main plaza, for all to see.


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Taínos could not understand

why the Christians wanted this gold.

One cacique of Haiti, Hatuey, fled

with his people to Cuba. When told that the

Christians had followed them, he took out

a basket of gold, and said, "Here

is the God of the Christians. They want

us to worship this God: that is why

they struggle with us and kill us. Let us dance

for this God. Who knows? It may please

the Christian God and then they will do us

no harm."

So he and his people danced

before the gold. Then Hatuey hurled

it into the middle of a river.

Not long after,

the Christians caught him

and tied him to a stake. A friar who knew

the Taíno language, told Hatuey,

just before they touched the flames,

"If you become a Christian, even now,

you will go to Heaven instead of

to the eternal torment of Hell."

Hatuey asked the friar, "Do

all Christians go to Heaven?" The friar

said, "They do;" and Hatuey replied, "I

would prefer then to go to Hell."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->And so the island of Haiti-Bohío-Quisqueya,

which in Taíno means,

"Mountain-House-Of Which Nothing Is Greater",

a land thriving with millions

of people when Columbus arrived,

within a short time was almost


Most of the Taíno men wound up as slaves

in the mines, most of the women slaves

in the fields, where thousands died

of exhaustion, disease, and hunger.

Those hiding in the mountains saw

that all was lost, and thousands jumped

from cliffs, hanged or stabbed themselves,

or drank cassava poison.

And the beautiful Taíno language

became silence.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Should the name of the country be changed from India to Bharat because the latter corresponds with our culture and tradition?

<!--emo&:angry:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad.gif' /><!--endemo--> Changing the name of India will not change the country. India is a concept of a billion people. You can call it whatever you want. But if you want to change the concept, it is a lot more than just changing the name. The need of the hour, as most doctors emphasise, is to maintain good hygiene. Certainly not a matter to wash one's hands off.


Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)