I accept this was and is a hindu country.but there is nothing wrong in allowing all people live here without interfering in others culture and centimets.we are indians first then comes our caste.
Re: hindu's country
by Partha Sarathy on Feb 14, 2011 12:03 PM
Yes exactly and we have always allowed that, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains have been living without any issue bcoz they dont interfere in others sentiments.. even parsis, jews came and settled here. There are millions of tibetans settled without any issues. problem starts only when someone start interfering..
Re: Re: This man should be deported to Afganistan
by venkat g on Feb 14, 2011 09:46 AM
It is british who united the country for their own self interest, not muslims.
Re: Re: Re: This man should be deported to Afganistan
by Shri Hegde on Feb 14, 2011 09:55 AM
It was Gandiji who united our country as anyone who lived at that time.
Re: Re: Re: This man should be deported to Afganistan
by Partha Sarathy on Feb 14, 2011 11:55 AM
Vikramaditya ruled from Middle east to Japan, Ashoka ruled entire India,Pak,Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and both ruled much before Mughals. Mughals ruled only northern India.Even in Mahabharata days Shakuni ruled present Afghanistan. In Ramayana times Bharata's son ruled as far as modern day Tashkent in Uzbekistan which was named Takshakhanda after him (Taksha).
Re: Re: This man should be deported to Afganistan
by Jayakwadi Jayakwadi on Feb 14, 2011 10:13 AM
Obviously, what else we can expect from a mullah brain washed Muslims. Country is known as Bharat after the name of king Bharat who first united whole subcontinent and was the first king to deny kingdom to his children on the basis of their low merit. there were several but the earliest in recorded history was Chandragupta Maurya, followed by king Bindusar and great Ashok who conquered whole subcontinent except kingdom of Kalinga(present day Orisa) .Then came mughals but they were not able to cross Deccan. then Maratha came and almost about to replace mughals as they united country, from Atok in Pakistan to Bihar and close to delhi in north to borders of Nizam in south.There is ling list of Hindu kings and rulers who held this subcontinent togather. Muslims were invadors who controlled large portion of this country to stuff their "Shahi Khazana" and feed their 'Harram Khana'.Who the heck gave you this numner of 500 kingdoms.there might be many but they were not divided on the lines of religion. Islam did that irreversible damage to this subcontinent by creating Pakistan. Islam invaded and divided this country.
Re: Re: This man should be deported to Afganistan
by Partha Sarathy on Feb 14, 2011 11:53 AM
Vikramaditya ruled from Middle east to Japan, Ashoka ruled entire India,Pak,Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and both ruled much before Mughals. Mughals ruled only northern India. Go and check the maps first and correct your history and geography.
before mughal rule,this country was occupied by 100 percent hindu people.Forein invador distroyed lot of hindu temples and build musdgid on that places.They converted lot of hindu people to muslim by force.With this background SC Must give a correct judjment to finish this issue.
Re: ayodya
by surendra joshi on Feb 14, 2011 10:01 AM
hindu is not a religion its a national Identity. For your info(let my muslim brotheran confirm it) indian muslims on huz are addressed as hindus in that country.counttry.
Re: Re: ayodya
by Partha Sarathy on Feb 14, 2011 11:57 AM
Yes there are zero xtians today, there are only protestants, catholics, methodists, pope followers, pope haters etc
Re: Re: ayodya
by Umesh Sharma on Feb 14, 2011 10:17 AM
mahakavi, get yr history right, the name hindu was given by alexander when he arrived in india and since there is no letters he called the people living on other side of sind river as hindus. this was much before the birth of muslims in fact mush before even christ was born.
Re: Re: ayodya
by Manish Jaiswal on Feb 14, 2011 09:40 AM
You don't know history. Surely the word 'Hindu' was given by invaders, but that doesn't mean brahmins, kshatriyas etc. were not Hindus.. i.e. the followers of Sanatan Dharma. And the British rulers didn't grouped the population under one category called the hindus, it were the invaders from the middle-east who called us so! The word 'Hindu' did not come into existence in 18th century, all the Indians are being called Hindu since the 11th or 12th century.
Re: Re: Re: ayodya
by vikas pundeer on Feb 14, 2011 10:25 AM
It was Magastehnese who described Bharat or Aryavrata (at that time) as Indica first time. He came to India in 266 BC, and thus word INDIA becmae popular in west world as westreners had to cross the river Indus (Sindhu), for coming to Bharat. The word HINDU also has originated by misformation of word Sindhu. For your kind information, the persons living in south India are native Indians, and they were called RAKSHASH which in original sense means person living in south (i.e. a person living in lower part of country). The preson living in north India are derived itself from ARYANS who came from west Asia or Europe but noiw a days this view is controversial.
What does the age of the litigant have anything to do with the case? Cleverly worded article to show as if he is the original litigant with a therefore just cause.
Re: hindus are not interted at all
by Mahi on Feb 14, 2011 12:08 AM
Reject the order that gives you one third of land unjustifiably. It is not acceptable.
This is getting lingured by central govt since long back. Sonia is not interested to arrive some conclusion otherwise they will not any point to raise against BJP.
Re: Charlie brown - Sudan being divided into two for Muslims/Xtia
by S P on Feb 13, 2011 11:24 PM
Chirstian Sonia is not interested to get some solution of this issue. She is same as English people who has ruled more than 200 yrs in this country. But congress men are believing themselves as loyal agents of this italian mam.
Re: Charlie brown - Sudan being divided into two for Muslims/Xtia
by HRM on Feb 13, 2011 11:35 PM
JGN, Iam Just reading (a book written by rousseau) it says about the psychic burdens of inequality and its dangerous impact on the society
In India, Castesim bring in inequality. Whether it is Hindu, muslim or a christian. The effects of indifferences (met by these dalits due to 1000's of years of depravity ) is inherited by these dalits though they are educated. The social backwardness of these dalits has not changed. The only relief these dalits hv is that they find equality in some religion which does'nt discriminate on birth and gives all human being one God. If u really want an egalitarian society ban the casteism and treat every one equal. dont bring in irrelevant inputs justifying casteism and inequalities.
Re: Re: Charlie brown - Sudan being divided into two for Muslims/
by Mahi on Feb 14, 2011 12:21 AM
Too late. Congress has closed almost all the ways leading to unifying India by legitimising and giving castecism a constitutional recognition through reservation. The unity of Hindus is end of congress.
