the author has highlighted all through his writing that, the geographical identity of people in India is Hindu or Hindi and has cited many articles. So what was his concern or problem in the slogan Garv Se Kaho Hum Hindu Hain. The slogan was in conformity to the essence of the article. Yet his group coined Garv Se Kaho Hum Insaan Hain.
The real hindus in India are tamilians or dravadia or the dark Indians. Rest all are migrants including people like us just like New Zealand has 93 percentage of white people but the land inhibiter were maori a tribal people. Rajput's and Aryans do not have long history in India. They came from outside. Mughals, Mongols, Turkish, British, Egyptians, Iranians have invaded India and set up a new civilization. As Markendey Katju said India is a country with 90% immigrant people. Instead there is deep history of Red Indians being slaughtered in North America, Africa and Europe. India is amongst the poorest countries and bottom in almost all social inficators. Try and work to make India self sufficient so that it survives than talking of past
Re: Rubbish article firdaus
by madhusudan rao on Dec 14, 2017 07:50 PM
This post is utter rubbish. Very sinister attempt made by the British lapped up by the so called liberals to break this country. Aryavartha is as old as the inhabitants in this country and it is also proven that Aryans were part of Indian continent and have not come from central Asia as wrongly propagated.
Re: Re: Rubbish article firdaus
by kiri on Dec 15, 2017 04:33 AM
Thank god today some people like you mr madhusudan understand these sinister and evil designs by such authors This is one of the most conniving authors on rediff
Re: Rubbish article firdaus
by Manohar Rao on Dec 14, 2017 08:34 PM
This is the wrong propaganda spread by the British. Aryans were not outsiders and very much Indians.Racism was rampant since time immemorial. The north Indian climate is cooler than the south Indian climate and hence Aryans were fairer than Dravidians. The British played their cards well and created the division between north India and South India saying that Aryans were Invaders and since racism was already rampant, the theory gained popularity. Just use common sense all the sacred texts mention the word Arya. The word Arya means pure. If Aryans were the Invaders then how come the word appears in Vedas which are thousands of years old? Recently too many historians and scholars have agreed that this was a wrong propaganda spread by the Britishers. India was never a single country. In fact some seven-eight hundred years ago there was never a concept of country in the whole world. There was no America, no Russia, no China and so on. The world was ruled by kings controlling small areas, who always were in a quest to expand. Just open your eyes and see why it is USA, why not just America, Russia was part of USSR, why it is UK, why not just Britain? Closer home, lets take AP, it is broadly divided into Telengana, Rayalseema and Conaseema. Telengana has seperated now. What I mean the country concept came into limelight only after the Britishers started travelling and capturing the regions i.e may be around 14th and 15th centuries.
Re: Rubbish article firdaus
by S M on Dec 15, 2017 11:40 AM
Aryan invasion theory put forward by max Mueller and used by the British to justify their rule has been proved to be false by global historians. But congress flunkies and other liberals are still parroting it
Re: Rubbish article firdaus
by KRISHNAMURTHY V on Dec 16, 2017 08:28 AM
Sameer Shaikh, Don't repeat the nonsense put up by the British as 'Aryan Invasion' theory. This has been disproved by means of the testing of genes(Genetic studies) of all so-called 'Races' in India, from the aborigines in Andaman to the Brahmins, including tribals, Muslims, people from North East India. Don't please display your ignorance
We never had Christians or Muslims in this region 1000 years back. It was called Bharat and people were following Vedas or some type of idol workship. Muslims invaded and indulged in forcible conversions and Christians were doing money based conversions. Those converted were mostly Vedanta followers. India is land of Hindus. Converts can coexist here in peace. But they have to respect the majority.
Re: Hinduism
by paul theo on Dec 15, 2017 10:35 AM
BUT ALSO MAJORITY APPEASEMENT IS NOT GOING TO HELP IN NATION BUILDING, IT WILL ONLY CREATE EXTRIMISTS
Re: Re: Hinduism
by S M on Dec 15, 2017 11:51 AM
TREATING PEOPLE EQUALLY IS NOT MAJORITY APPEASEMENT. MINORYTISM OF THE CONGRESS IS. SAYING MINORITIES HAVE FIRST RIGHT ON NATIONAL RESOURCES IS APPEASEMENT
Re: Re: Hinduism
by KRISHNAMURTHY V on Dec 16, 2017 08:40 AM
Majority Appeasement? This is a joke Mr. Paul Theo. What is Haj and Jerusalem Subsidy? Is it majority appeasement? What is the concessions given to Minority educational institutions, to allot seats without adhering to the Quota system? Is this available to the Hindu educational institutions? There are a lot more to quote.
Re: Re: Zakir Nalayak....
by vidwan soni on Dec 14, 2017 07:06 PM
What is good in Hindus o fool? All rubbish like other faiths. Modi wining by playing Hindu card
Re: Re: Re: Zakir Nalayak....
by paul theo on Dec 15, 2017 10:36 AM
THEN YOU NEED TO SEPERATE GOOD HINDUS AND BAD HINDUS, ALL ARE NOT SAINTS AND MAHATMAS
Re: Re: Re: Re: Zakir Nalayak....
by S M on Dec 15, 2017 11:47 AM
WHY SHOULD I, ITS NOT MY BUSINESS TO COLLECT $OUL$ LIKE XTIANITY NOR DO I WISH TO CONDEMN ANYONE TO H3LL FOR NOT WORSH1PP1NG A CERTAIN GAWD
I am not defined by what others call me, I am defined by what I think I am. Hence the whole argument of the article on how others are calling us Hindus or whatever is fallacious.
If a person born and brought up here thinks his origins are from Arabia because of his religion then he belongs, there and not here.
There are numerous documents like his cambridge admission form, the NYT 1992 article that clearly indicate Rahulbaba as a cath0lic. On the contrary there are NO documents that indicate he is of hyndu faith. Being in a public life he has to make this clear and cannot have secrets. If we can have a myslum president then we can have a cath0lic PM, nothing wrong with that. But not one who is trying to obfuscate who he is.
Re: I am not defined by what others call me
by Vijay Sahani on Dec 14, 2017 01:57 PM
The problem is : You know better than what Rahulbaba is saying. That he is not a Hindu.
The problem is in your head Baby, not with Rahul baba.
Re: Re: I am not defined by what others call me
by Vijay Sahani on Dec 14, 2017 02:06 PM
The problem is : You know better than what Rahulbaba is saying. He says he is secular, others in Congress say he is a janeu dhari Hindu but YOU still want to believe that he is not a Hindu.
Re: Re: I am not defined by what others call me
by samcarto on Dec 14, 2017 07:04 PM
Ofcourse the problem is in my head and I will not vote for Rahul until I find a solution. It is for Rahul decide whether he wants my vote or not.
Re: I am not defined by what others call me
by S M on Dec 14, 2017 07:10 PM
He is janeu dhari for this election, if required he can even become naga sadhu in future
Re: I am not defined by what others call me
by dhananjay patil on Dec 14, 2017 07:12 PM
By your own logic means - I am not defined by what others call me, RG is Hindu since he says and thinks so. I rest by case.
Re: Re: I am not defined by what others call me
by samcarto on Dec 15, 2017 02:02 PM
He never said he is a hyndu. There are only document sin public domain that claim that he is a cath0lic. He has never declared his religion. That is the problem. If he is running for a public office he cannot obfuscate issues.
Re: I am not defined by what others call me
by KRISHNAMURTHY V on Dec 16, 2017 08:44 AM
Rahul is a Hindu in India during election time; and Catholic outside India !!!
Re: Is the author finally agreeing that all Indians were Hindus o
by Vijay Sahani on Dec 14, 2017 01:56 PM
He is saying all Indians were never H!ndus". They are H!ndus"" only in name because they were born this side of Indus.
In other words, if you cannot disown your ancestory (who were all H!ndus"" not just geographically but also culturally and got converted later), own up the word "H!ndus"" as applicable to "all" this side of Indus, irrespective of their religion.
Re: Re: Is the author finally agreeing that all Indians were Hind
by S M on Dec 14, 2017 07:12 PM
That shows the author's stupidity. It is the culture and tradition a person follows that defines the person as a hindu not the geography of his birth
