It is an interesting article to share which go deeper in to the history of the word Hindu. It is by Baldev Singh, PhD
316 R Glad way, Collegeville, PA 19426, USA.
Hindu media has no qualms about publishing misinformation bout non-
Hindus, but when confronted with a rebuttal, the editors look the
other way and ignore it. Thus, I was not surprised when Prashant
Shah published only a small portion of my response in India Tribune
of Novenmber 2, 2002, to Niranjan Shah’s column “Letter from
grandpa” with headline “Who is a Hindu? Who is not?” – that was
published in India Tribune of September 28, 2002. Due to many
centuries of subjugation and humiliation by foreigners, Hindus have
lost self-respect, dignity and the will to face the truth and
reality. Instead, they have become masters of deception,
manipulation and hypocrisy. They cry hoarse, that foreign writers
have maligned their religion and culture and distorted their
history. However, they don’t have any compunction against quoting
foreign historians if it suites their purpose as Niranjan Shah has
done in his baseless and illogical rejoinder. Here is my reply to
Shah has quoted several foreign sources to prove that “Hindu” is a
corrupted version of “Sindhu.” However, he has ignored my questions
and failed to reflect on the meaning of “Hindu Kush.” The
interpretation that the word Hindu is a corrupted version of Sindhu
does not explain why the Sindhu River or the people who live in the
valley of this river did not acquire the name “Hindu.” This river is
called Sindh and the people are called Punjabis and Sindhis. No body
calls the state of Sindh as Hind or Sindhis as Hindis.
I am not sure whether it was a Hindu or a European, who was the
first to suggest that Persians called river Sindhu as Hindu due to
difference in pronunciation. Nonetheless, this explanation has found
its way in European writings. Hindus find comfort in this absurd
explanation as it provides them escape from facing the reality of
their humiliating past and connects them to their mythical glorious
past, the so called Vedic period of Ram Raj. Indian writers who have
looked at the meaning of “Hindu” with a critical eye don’t agree
with the interpretation of foreign writers. For example:
“The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-
25 centuries has made it very difficult to understand the nature of
this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians,
too, have failed to trace the true name of this Brahmanland, a vast
continent like country, and therefore, they have contended
themselves by calling it by that meaningless term “Hindu.” This
word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our
Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that
political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of
the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian
literature. Hindu-e-falak means “the black of the sky’ and Saturn.”
In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful
and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu
was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they
landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.” [R. N. Suryanarayan, Universal
Religion, p 1-2, published from Mysore in 1952.]
“Some people, according to the author, say that this word Hindu is a
corrupt form of Sindhu but this is wrong because Sindhu was the name
of the river and not the name of the community. Moreover, it is
correct that this name has been given to the original Aryan race of
the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says
our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those
who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves.” [Maharishi Shri
Dayanand Sarswati Aur Unka Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai,
published from Lahore in 1898, in the chapter of introduction.]
Besides, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in
Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of Hindu as ‘chore (thief), dakoo
(dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave)’. Yet according to
an other dictionary named Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat – part 1 (p 615),
the meaning of the word Hindu is as under: In Turkish: chore,
raahzan and lutera (looter). In Persian: ghulam (slave), barda
(obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black). The
hypothesis that Persians had difficulty in pronouncing Sindhu is
baseless and preposterous. For example, how do the Persians who are
Shia Muslims pronounce words like Shia, Sunni and Shariat? In
Punjabi there are many, many words of Persian origin, which start
with “s” and “sh.” For example, sardar or sirdar (leader), shaheed
(martyr), shhadat (martyrdom) shair (lion), sahir (town), sar (walk)
shayer (poet), shakar (sugar), sja (punishment), siahi (black ink),
siah(black) and so on. The word Punjab is also derived from Persian
panch and aab (five waters).
The word Hindu may be as old as the Indus Vallay Civilization. To
find the meaning of “Hindu” one ought to look at the term “Hindu
Kush”(killer of Hindus). Who were the people, who named this
mountain range as Hindu Kush? Why these mountains were called the
killers of Hindus? As I mentioned earlier, the Indian subcontinent
was inhabited by dark complexioned people before the migration of
Caucasian tribes from the Caucasus region. The fair skinned
Caucasian tribes who lived on the Northwest of Hindu Kush Moutain
range called the Indian subcontinent as the land of Hindus (land of
black people). The Northwest expansion of the inhabitants of Indus
Valley was prevented by of Hindu Kush Mountains. Whenever the plain
dwelling Indians (Hindus) attempted to cross these mountains, they
met death due harsh terrain and heavy snow. That is how these
mountains were given the name Hindu Kush by mountain dwelling
Caucasian tribes. Once a large number of Indian people died on these
mountains due to heavy snow fall and that is how these mountains
acquired the name “Hindu Kush” – killer of the Hindus. [Bhai Kahan
Singh Nabha, Mahan Kosh, 1996 edn. p 275.]
Later on when the Caucasian tribes conquered Northwest India, they
continued using the name Hindu for native Indians. To humiliate the
natives, the Caucasians ridiculed their culture, looks and black
complexion, and used derogatory expressions for them. It is
astonishing that these derogatory expressions have survived through
thousands of years of Indian history and are found in modern Indian
languages. “Blackness” is used in bad connotation in Indian
languages. For example, in Punjabi there are expressions like, kaala
munh (black mouth, ugly or who speaks ill), kaali Jeebh ( evil
speaking tounge), kaala chore (notorious thief), kaala dhandha
(illegal profession), kaala dhan (black money), kaali bhaid (black
sheep), kalai laikh (black deeds) and kaala chum (black skinned
person). There are also expressions like bandar munhan (monkey face)
and rish jeha (bear-like), which the Caucasians used to describe the
features of native Indians (Hindus). In Ramyan, the two native
devotees of Shri Ram Chandar are depicted as a monkey (Hanuman) and
a bear (Jamawant).
.................................................. .Contd............................................ ...........
Last edited by Samarkadian; April 20th, 2012 at 02:56 PM.
"All I am trying to do is bridge the gap between Jats and Rest of World"
As I shall imagine, so shall I become.
The Muslim conquers used the word Hindu for all the Indians.
However, Hindus, who supported the Muslim rulers in the
establishment of their authority over Hindu masses, were honored
with titles like Chaudhary, Malik, Dewan, Shah, Raizada, Rayees,
Munshi, Mahajan and others. Nowadays, the descendents of those
Hindus bear these titles with great pride as surnames. Shah did not
find the meaning of “Hindu” as black because he searched the wrong
sources. Moreover, even if Shah had found that “Hindu” means black,
he would have been hesitant to accept it, as the inferiority complex
of “blackness” is deeply imbedded in the psyche of Indians. Most
Indians except the Dalits consider themselves as the descendants of
Caucasian tribes, who ruled over India before the onslaught of
Muslims. So for Hindus to accept that “Hindu” means black would make
them the descendants of native Indians, who are black people That is
why Hindus insist that “Hindu” is the corrupted form of Sindhu.
Indians of today are the products of thousands of years of
miscegenation between Caucasian groups and native Indians. However,
Indians are reluctant to admit this fact. Excluding Kashmiris, the
complexion of the Indian population varies from ‘light tan’
to ‘ebony black’ and the majority is quite dark. Indians despise
black skin color is in spite of the fact that Indians are considered
non-white by Europeans. For instance, in Indian movies, invariably,
the hero and heroine have Caucasian features and lighter skin color
than most of the population. Moreover, in the matrimonial columns in
Indian newspapers everyone looks for a spouse of lighter color. Why
does a dark person want to marry a person of lighter color? Is it
because the dark person is not comfortable with his or her color and
want to improve the color of his or her progeny. The superiority of
white skin is deeply imbedded in the Indian psyche because ever
since the conquest of Indus Valley by Caucasians, India has been
ruled by white people like Aryans, Persians, Macedonians, Scythians,
Huns, Arabs, Turks, Afghanas, Mangols, Portugese, French and
English. When the English left, Indians crowned Jawahar Lal Nehru,
who was the fairest among the Hindu leaders. In the words of a
socialist leader, Madhu Limaye, Nehru practiced both racism and
casteism, despite his modern upbringing and outlook (Telegraph,
Calcutta, November 21, 1987). In a revealing passage about
his “making,” Nehru wrote, “Behind me lie somewhere in the sub-
conscience, racial memories of hundred or whatever the numbers may
be, generations of Brahmans. I cannot get rid of that past
inheritance.” [Jawaharlal Nehru, An Autobiography (1936)), 1980
edn., p 596.] Being a fair skinned Brahman he rode roughshod over
other leaders. The so-called iron man Patel or president Rajindra
Parsad did not dare to challenge Nehru over his policies. The reason
could be that both of them belonged to lower castes and had very
dark complexion. It is intriguing why Mahatma Gandhi, a Gujrati
Bania with caricature personality, insisted upon making Nehru his
heir apparent, while ignoring others who were equally qualified. Was
it Nehru’s fair skin, which impressed Gandhi the most? Similarly,
why couldn’t the Congress Party find a single person in the whole
country worthy enough to be its leader? It turned to Sonia Gandhi,
who like her late husband does not understand or speak Hindi very
well. What qualifications distinguish her from other Congress
leaders? Is it her fair skin? In Pashto, the language of the
dominant Afghan tribe of Pashtoons, Hindu is pronounced as Indu (h
is silent). The Greeks called the people of Indus Valley Indos or
Indus and hence, the name India. The Muslims called it Hindustan.
Bharat or Bhartvarsha may be the name of a mythical kingdom in Hindu
scriptures or of a small principality located in the state of Uttar
Pardesh but it was never the name of the Indian subcontinent.
Whereas Hinduism is derived from the word Hindu, the names of the
other three religions, Buddhism, Janism and Sikhism founded on the
Indian subcontinent are derived from Indian words with noble
meanings: “Budh” (enlightenment), “Jan”[victorious (over vices)]
and “Sikh”(learner), respectively.
Does it make any sense for Indians who are never tired of talking
about the glory of their past, their religion and their civilization
to call themselves “Hindus” when this word is not found in any Hindu
text? The foreigners gave this derogatory label “Hindu” to the
people of the Indian subcontinent. What right or justification do
the champions of “Hindutva” have to apply this derogatory
label “Hindu” to others, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists? Have Hindus no
sense of shame or decency? It’s no wonder that Sanskrit does not
have the equivalents of words like jameer (conscience), emaan (moral
conviction) and vfa
India will remain mired in religious, caste, linguistic and ethnic
strifes as long as Indians don’t come to terms with their past
history objectively and learn from it.
Last edited by Samarkadian; April 20th, 2012 at 02:59 PM.
"All I am trying to do is bridge the gap between Jats and Rest of World"
As I shall imagine, so shall I become.
DrRajpalSingh (April 20th, 2012), JSRana (April 25th, 2012), pankajpotaliya (May 5th, 2014), rajpaldular (July 12th, 2013), raka (April 21st, 2012), ravinderjeet (April 21st, 2012), rinkusheoran (November 14th, 2012), satyenderdeswal (April 20th, 2012), Sure (April 24th, 2012), ygulia (April 20th, 2012)
The beautiful summing up by the author deserves notice by all:
"India will remain mired in religious, caste, linguistic and ethnic
strifes as long as Indians don’t come to terms with their past
history objectively and learn from it.''
A cheap gimmick of the author Baldev Singh for justifying the conversions from Hinduism to other religions, but such mean attempts are baseless. This whole world knows that first Muslim invader came to India in around year 1000. During that period India was richest country/region in the world. Would the author agree upon this fact that India was attacked by the foreigners to get gold and wealth from here? If yes, then would he like to elaborate as to how the black/thieves/slaves can be richest in the world? If author says India was poor during that period, then he must be a pathetic fool.
After that India have 947 years long tale of successful and great struggle against the foreigners to get them out of India. So, I can't understand what the hell this author wants to convey. We have kicked the Britishers out of India capturing all their works, done in India (e.g. railways, ports, hill stations, roads, bridges, buildings etc.). We have made the Muslim 'conquerers' surrender to us, setting the world record of military surrender. We are the rising super power of the world. If 'Hindu' meant thief/dacoit/slave in Persian/Turkish, then what happened now? Why the word 'Hindu' doesn't have those meanings now in these languages?
The Indian sub-continent have had established civilized empires like Dravidian (very urban), Aryan (& Scythian), etc.... They were warriors Who let their swords talk in the battle-fields since at-least as early as any established civilization on Earth.... well, I guess they don't appear 'thieves' to any of the History Scholars but warriors !! I would point-out specially the Dravidians, who had a very urban life-style, and there are countless references about that; they don't appear to be 'thieves' !! As far as the word 'slave' is concerned, everyone knows that how vast ancient empires came into existence and nourished at the Indian sub-continent, the author should visit here at-least once !! Of-course, no-one can deny the presence of other civilized empires on Earth as well; there have been many other civilizations too. The earliest records of the civilizations in India are older than the compilation of the dictionary (and words) of many languages (not being specific about any, I respect literature).
We must learn to respect every civilization, that has served Humanity !!
As far as the word 'black' is concerned, I have a-lot to convey, but I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.... so, I leave it all-alone !!
That shall be All !!
Last edited by Moar; April 24th, 2012 at 06:44 PM.
Also, I guess - Urdu, Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Mongolian - are different languages, and all of them would have been prominently used in India at some time by the migrants; so this is what that also needs to be in mind while looking for the words starting with the sound of 'S' that are not of Indian origin, but of-whom We are aware of; that to which language do they actually belong and when is their earliest recorded attested use in that particular language !! Hang-on, before proceeding, read the whole post. I am not 100% sure but Upender Singh Laakda's views also needs to considered by the present day Scholars !!
Also, we have seen in the past that lots of words from different languages got introduced in-between different languages over time; there are many examples of this !! For example: "Persian has had a considerable influence (mainly in the lexicon) on neighboring languages, particularly the Turkic languages in Central Asia, Caucasus, and Anatolia, neighboring Iranian languages, as well as Armenian, and Indo-Aryan languages, especially Urdu. It has exerted less influence on Arabic, while borrowing much vocabulary from it.... With a long history of literature in the form of Middle Persian before Islam, Persian was the first language in Muslim civilization to break through Arabic’s monopoly on writing, and the writing of poetry in Persian was established as a court tradition in many eastern courts." (Source: Persian language - Wikipedia) Can anyone deny any chances of the words being assimilated in-between these different languages over time !!
Also, I suppose no single language with a unique / specific / single accent is spoken by all the residents in any country on Earth (at any period of time !!), guess so; this is also important that who was on front at the field !! I will take example of Persia, like they have spoken Pehlevi, Farsi (Parsi / Parsee ?!), etc. during ancient time. Please note that 'F' and 'P' are interchanged there (and such a change in that one single country !!), interesting, isn't it !!
When they were at the borders of Sindh, how many of them were speakers of Pehlevi and how many of Farsi, please mind that they will be called as Farsis (people) or Persians anyways, even if they were using Pehlevi or Farsi (another name for Parsi (language) / Parsee (language) / Persian (language) I guess !!) or any other language that was also spoken over there; so how many languages were used by the people of that region, and with what accent, this is important to know !!
Also, did the migrants not spelt Sindh as Hind, and Sindhu river as Hindu river ?! Also, the languages used at different times are different like - Urdu, Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, etc. If Sindh was spelt as Hind at-least for once (due to linguistic differences though), then I am satisfied with Upender Singh Laakda's views !!
Linguistic differences are important, for example: "Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning “S”, thus making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as the Indus. His Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus as India, a name used especially during the British regime. Before this, the Vedic name for the area was "Bharath Varsha", which many people still prefer to call by this name." (Source: SikhiWiki)
See what a linguistic issue can come-up with !!
Maybe, Sindh was in-reality spelt as Hind, but later-on a bad meaning was intentionally imposed on the word, because they could not think of something else but the first word with which the geography and people over there were identified (maybe, this word was the best possible choice actually for them to target; who may or may not be Persian migrants, could be Arab migrants, Mughal migrants, Pathan migrants, Turk migrants, etc., could be anyone of them; so it may not be justified to claim that any Persian would have done this !!); and the real thing maybe is that Hindu is merely a translation (or a synonym in this case) of Sindhu !!
Please be aware of the example that I have pointed-out above, where 'F' and 'P' are interchanged, due to linguistic issues !!
Furthermore, there are also chances that Sumerians might have mispronounced the word 'Sindhu' !!
Also: "Hiuen Tsang who visited this country between AD 630 and 645 says that while the word “Shin-tu” (Chine-se for “Hindu”) could be heard outside our borders, it was unknown within the country." ( Source: http://voiceofdharma.org/books/htemples2/app3.htm )
Last edited by Moar; April 25th, 2012 at 01:29 PM.
(1) information : http://voiceofdharma.org/books/htemples2/app3.htm
(2) information : http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_meaning.asp
Last edited by Moar; April 24th, 2012 at 10:15 PM.
A lot has been written about the name Hindu Kush and even more interpretation have emerged but I doubt that it really is the original name and it meant the killer of Hindus. Some of the links provided here are very informative and I learned a great deal. However, I think the name is probably handed down to the muslims from persians who called this region as the bordering area between Persia and Hindustan. I see three possibilities, all based on sources based outside of India and all before the time of Ibn Batuta or even before Islam:
(i) It is persianised or iraniazed version of Greek Indicus, meaning 'of India'. The range being called 'Caucasus Indicus' or 'mountain of India'. So for ancient Greeks, India really started from these mountains,
(ii) It may be derived from Persian Hind-o-Kushan (obvious reference to Kushans), who were rulers in this area of Hind and neighbours of Persians, or
(ii) Maybe derived from Hind Kho (Kho meaning mountain, thus Mountain of Hind). This possibility is looking somewhat weak now since there are several hills in this area, which still retain 'kho', such as the hill called Baba-i-koh, which is were Hindukush starts in central Afghanistan and goes to Pamirs. So not really sure if kush is derived from it. Btw, there is still a language used by locals in this area called as Hindko.
I am inclined to probably believe that name really meant 'Hind Mountain' or Mountain of India, where probably the boundary of ancient India started, as a name than anything else at least in the beginning.
Although, the possibility that it was also a place where many people from Hind died makes sense too, a kind of genocide during slavery, and that is what Ibn Batuta recorded. But some name should really exist even before Ibn Batuta or one of the muslim invaders were born. Its ancient Sanskrit name based on internet search is 'Pariyatra Parvata'.
I am open to suggestions.
Last edited by nrao; April 26th, 2012 at 06:01 AM.
- Naveen Rao
Dear Boys & Dear Girls,
I have further continued My research over the subject. And, on a second look, I would like to admit that I have introduced My aforesaid views without a scrutiny of the subject, but in a hurry and in the influence of kind of an attachment with the word "Hindu".
And after a deep study of the issue, I can safely say that one cannot simply discard Baldev Singh's (academic qualification : Ph.D.) research-work; and it does carry weight !!
Why AM I saying so now, is because :
It is a globally known fact that the Persians called the " Scythians ", " Sakā " ( Sakai ) [ who were later known as " Śāka " in India ]; and almost all of the Scythologists and Iranologists throughout the globe agree with this established research-work.
One reference, for the scholars in making : Scythians in the Ancient World ( http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/a...9Scythians.htm ) by N. S. Gill (N. S. Gill has a B.A. in Latin and an M.A. in linguistics at the University of Minnesota. She has TA'd classes in the Age of Pericles, technical terms, Classical culture and mythology.).
And, how is it possible that the Persians were successfully able to spell " Sakâ ", but failed to spell " Sindhu " ?!
As they say in Hollywood, " It's not over yet !! "
As they say in Bollywood, " पिक्चर अभी बाकी है मेरे दोस्त !! "
Last edited by Moar; November 2nd, 2012 at 04:25 PM.
Most scholars consider the writing system to be an independent invention because it has no obvious connections with other writing systems at the time, such as Elamite, Akkadian, Hurrian, and Hittite cuneiforms. While Old Persian's basic strokes are similar to those found in cuneiform scripts, Old Persian texts were engraved on hard materials, so the engravers had to make cuts that imitated the forms easily made on clay tablets. The signs are composed of horizontal, vertical, and angled wedges. There are four basic components and new signs are created by adding wedges to these basic components. These four basic components are two parallel wedges without angle, three parallel wedges without angle, one wedge without angle and an angled wedge, and two angled wedges. The script is written from left to right.
The script encodes three vowels, a, i, u, and twenty-two consonants, k, x, g, c, ç, j, t, θ, d, p, f, b, n, m, y, v, r, l, s, z, š, and h. Old Persian contains two sets of consonants: those whose shape depends on the following vowel and those whose shape is independent of the following vowel. The consonant symbols that depend on the following vowel act like the consonants in Devanagari's writing system. Vowel diacritics are added to these consonant symbols to change the inherent vowel or add length to the inherent vowel. However, the vowel symbols are usually still included so [di] would be written as [di] [i] even though [di] already implies the vowel. For the consonants whose shape does not depend on the following vowels, the vowel signs must be used after the consonant symbol.
Compared to the Avestan alphabet Old Persian notably lacks voiced fricatives, but includes the sign ç (of uncertain pronunciation) and a sign for the non-native l. Notably, in common with the Brahmic abugidas, there appears to be no distinction between a consonant followed by an a and a consonant followed by nothing.
(1) Windfuhr, G. L.: "Notes on the old Persian signs", page 1. Indo-Iranian Journal, 1970.
(2) Kent, R. G.: "Old Persian: Grammar Texts Lexicon", page 9. American Oriental Society, 1950.
(3) Windfuhr, G. L.: "Notes on the old Persian signs", page 2. Indo-Iranian Journal, 1970.
(4) Daniels, Peter T.: "The World's Writing Systems", page 134. Oxford University Press, 1996.
(5) Daniels, Peter T.: "The World's Writing Systems", page 136. Oxford University Press, 1996.
(6) Daniels, Peter T.: "The World's Writing Systems", page 135. Oxford University Press, 1996.
It is worth noticing that from an article on the old Persian writing, that was replaced by the Arabic script, it talks about the phonetic "S", which provides us reasons to believe that the Persians used to spell the phonetic "S". And, the current Persian script also has a letter (alphabet) for the phonetic sound of "S", as well.
For more details over the subject, please visit : Old Persian cuneiform .
मुस्लिम-मत ने, हिंदू-मत को क्या दिया ????लेखक :- विश्वप्रियप्रथम स्पष्ट कर दूँ कि ऊपर के शीर्षक में मैंने “मुस्लिम-धर्म” या “हिंदू-धर्म” शब्द का प्रयोग नहीं किया है परन्तु “मत” शब्द का प्रयोग किया है क्यों कि संसार में धर्म तो एक ही है – वैदिक धर्म, और बाकी सारे तो मत, पंथ, मार्ग, विचार, परिवार, समुदाय या दल हैं | इसलिए हिंदू धर्म को धर्म नहीं पर “मत” कहा जाना चाहिए, वैसे भी हिंदू मत वाले “मतवाले” ही होते हैं | इस वैदिक धर्म को ही आप मानव-धर्म कह सकते है और इसी धर्म को आप सत्य-सनातन धर्म भी कह सकते हैं| ५११२ वर्ष पहलें कोई समय था जब सारी धरती पर एक ही धर्म था – वैदिक धर्म | ना ईसाई, ना मुस्लिम,ना जैन, ना बौद्ध, ना सिक्ख या कोई और |
किसी भी दो अलग-अलग परिवेश में पले-बढ़े व्यक्ति या परिवार के मिलने पर कुछ नया सीखना-सिखाना, विचार-व्यवहार का होना स्वाभाविक है | एक परिवार कि पुत्री विवाहित होकर दूसरे परिवार कि सदस्य (बहु) बनती है तब ससुराल में अपने साथ कुछ नया संस्कार, विचार, व्यवहार लाती है और साथ ही ससुराल से कुछ सीखकर जब माँ के घर जाती है तब भी कुछ ससुराल के संस्कार, विचार मायके में बताती है और इस प्रकार एक सम्बन्ध के साथ-साथ अन्य बातों का भी आदान-प्रदान होता है | विवाह के बाद आदान-प्रदान होता है रहन-सहन, खान-पान आदि का ठीक उसी प्रकार दो मतों के बीच में भी द्वन्द चलता है और आदान-प्रदान भी चलता रहता है | मुस्लिम मत के दीर्घ शासन काल में हिंदू मत के ऊपर बहुत सारे अत्याचार किये गए और इस दौरान हिंदू मत ने क्या-क्या अपनाया, मुस्लिमों ने हमको क्या-क्या दिया, उसका एक संकलन नीचे प्रस्तुत किया है, कृपा कर विचार करें और अच्छी बातों के समूह (वैदिक धर्म) में प्रवेश कर चुकी बुराइयों (अन्य सारे मतों) को छोडें |
प्रस्तुत है मुस्लिम मत ने हिंदू मत को क्या-क्या दिया या हिंदू मत ने मुस्लिम मत से क्या-क्या लिया :-
- हिंदू नाम :- सबसे पहले अपने आप को –“गर्व से कहो हम हिंदू है” कहने वाले हिंदू को “हिंदू” नाम मुस्लिमों ने दिया | कभी स्वामी विवेकानंद ने कहा होगा “गर्व से कहो हम हिंदू है” बस फिर क्या था सब के सब लग गए रटने “गर्व से कहो हम हिंदू है”…. “गर्व से कहो हम हिंदू है” | किसी ने फुर्सत से सोचा नहीं कि आखिर हम अपने आपको हिंदू क्यों कहें ??? विवेकानंद को हिंदू धर्म का आदर्श पुरुष बताया जाता है पर किसी के पास समय नहीं है विवेकानंद का साहित्य पढ़ने का और सच्चाई जानने का | विवेकानंद ने क्या सच में हिंदू धर्म के लिए काम किया था ?? या अन्य धर्म के समर्थन में भी काम किया था ?? इन सारी बातों पर हमें विचार करना चाहिए | (इस पर मैं कभी स्वतंत्र लेख लिखूंगा) पर ये हिंदू शब्द आया कहाँ से ? किस भाषा का शब्द है ये ? इसका क्या अर्थ है ? हम कब से हिंदू कहलाने लग गए ? क्या राम और कृष्ण हिंदू थे क्या ? यदि नहीं थे तो वे कौन थे ? क्या हमारे शास्त्रों में हिंदू शब्द का उल्लेख आता है क्या ? रामायण, रामचरितमानस, महाभारत, गीता, वेद, उपनिषद, दर्शन ….. अरे हनुमान चालीसा…. आदि किस पुस्तक में हिंदू नाम आता है ? यदि नहीं आता तो हम कितने वर्ष पूर्व हिंदू कहलाने लग गए ? इन सारे प्रश्नों का उत्तर खोजे बिना सब अपने आपको हिंदू कह और लिख रहे हैं | मैं मानता हूँ कि आज अपने-आपको हिंदू लिखना और कहना हमारी मजबूरी है | ये मजबूरी हमारी ही पैदा कि हुई है, अगर हमारे पूर्वजों ने अपना असली नाम “आर्य” कहना/लिखना छोड़ा न होता तो आज हम अपने आपको हिंदू क्यों कहते? अपने-आपको हिंदू लिखना और कहना हमारी मजबूरी है क्यों कि सरकारी दस्तावेजों में कहीं हिंदू के अलावा और कोई विकल्प नहीं है तो मजबूरन हमें हिंदू लिखना पड़ता है जैसे जनगणना के दस्तावेज में न चाहते हुए भी हिंदू लिखवाना मजबूरी है, हम चाह कर भी अपने आप को वैदिक धर्मी नहीं कह सकते, पर हिंदू कहने पर गर्व करना ? यह कैसी मजबूरी ? ये कैसी मूर्खता ? आइये ! ऊपर के प्रश्नों के उत्तर खोजे |
India and Israel (Hindus & Jews) are true friends in this World. Both are Long Live and yes also both have survived and surviving under adverse conditions.
vicky84 (October 22nd, 2013)
I feel there needs to be some clarification about the use of the words ï¿½Hinduï¿½ and ï¿½Hinduism.ï¿½ The fact is that true ï¿½Hinduismï¿½ is based on Vedic knowledge, which is related to our spiritual identity. Many people do accept it to mean the same thing as Sanatana-dharma, which is a more accurate Sanskrit term for the Vedic path. Such an identity is beyond any temporary names as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even Hindu. After all, God never describes Himself as belonging to any such category, saying that He is only a Christian God, or a Muslim God, or a Hindu God. That is why some of the greatest spiritual masters from India have avoided identifying themselves only as Hindus. The Vedic path is eternal, and therefore beyond all such temporary designations. So am I calling the name ï¿½Hinduï¿½ a temporary designation?
We must remember that the term ï¿½hinduï¿½ is not even Sanskrit. Numerous scholars say it is not found in any of the Vedic literature. So how can such a name truly represent the Vedic path or culture? And without the Vedic literature, there is no basis for ï¿½Hinduism.ï¿½
Most scholars feel that the name ï¿½Hinduï¿½ was developed by outsiders, invaders who could not pronounce the name of the Sindhu River properly. According to Sir Monier Williams, the Sanskrit lexicographer, you cannot find an indigenous root for the words Hindu or India. Neither are these words found in any Buddhist or Jain texts, nor any of the official 23 languages of India. Some sources report that it was Alexander the Great who first renamed the River Sindhu as the Indu, dropping the beginning ï¿½Sï¿½, thus making it easier for the Greeks to pronounce. This became known as the Indus. This was when Alexander invaded India around 325 B.C. His Macedonian forces thereafter called the land east of the Indus as India, a name used especially during the British regime. Before this, the Vedic name for the area was Bharath Varsha, which many people still prefer to call it by that name.
Later, when the Muslim invaders arrived from such places as Afghanistan and Persia, they called the Sindhu River the Hindu River. Thereafter, the name ï¿½Hinduï¿½ was used to describe the inhabitants from that tract of land in the northwestern provinces of India where the Sindhu River is located, and the region itself was called ï¿½Hindustan.ï¿½ Because the Sanskrit sound of ï¿½Sï¿½ converts to ï¿½Hï¿½ in the Parsee language, the Muslims pronounced the Sindhu as ï¿½hindu,ï¿½ even though at the time the people of the area did not use the name ï¿½hinduï¿½ themselves. This word was used by the Muslim foreigners to identify the people and the religion of those who lived in that area. Thereafter, even the Indians conformed to these standards as set by those in power and used the names Hindu and Hindustan. Otherwise, the word has no meaning except for those who place value on it or now use it out of convenience.
This is corroborated and explained further by Sarjerao Ramrao Gharge-Deshmukh, where he explains, ï¿½At the juncture of the Greek invasion, the noun Hindu had not yet evolved. The natives were [known as] the Vedic people who followed the practices prescribed in the Vedas where fire worship was prominent among other forces of nature, such as Indra (rains), Varun (water), Vayu (wind), Ashva (horse), etc. As a religion, Islam was formalized around 622 AD and the Persian conquest of 642-44 AD by the Arabs as Islamic power destroyed the age-old Persian civilization in terms of philosophy, culture, type of worship, etc. Within 100 years of the Arabic conquest, the Persians were overwhelmingly converted to Islam. At this juncture, due to Persian interchangeability between ï¿½sï¿½ and ï¿½hï¿½, Sindu must have become Hindu and the Persians called their brothers across the river as Hindus and the abode of the Hindus as Hindusthan. Nehru in his book titled Discovery of India also states that the earliest reference to the term Hindu was found in the Tantrik literatures of the 8th century AD. Thus, relatively speaking, Hindu is the modern term for the Vedic Indians by the Persians who had lost their ancient civilization to the Arabs.ï¿½ (Ramayana: A Fact or Fiction?, by Sarjerao Ramrao Gharge-Deshmukh, Pratibha Deshmukh, Pune, October, 2003, p.236)
Another view of the name ï¿½Hinduï¿½ shows the confusing nature it causes for understanding the true essence of the spiritual paths of India. As written by R. N. Suryanarayan in his book Universal Religion (p.1-2, published in Mysore in 1952), ï¿½The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries, has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent-like country, and, therefore, they have contented themselves by calling it by that meaningless term ï¿½Hinduï¿½. This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means ï¿½the black of the skyï¿½ and ï¿½Saturnï¿½. In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu.ï¿½
The location wherein the word "Hindu" occurs for what some people feel the first time is in the Avesta of the Iranians in its description of the country of India and its people. As their state religion of Zoroastrianism grew, the word seemed to take on a derogatory meaning. And of course as Islam spread in India, the words "Hindu" and "Hindustan" became even more disrespected and even hated in the Persian arena, and more prominent in the Persian and Arabic literature after the 11th century.
Another view of the source of the name Hindu is based on a derogatory meaning. It is said that, ï¿½Moreover, it is correct that this name [Hindu] has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves.ï¿½ (Maharishi Shri Dayanand Saraswati Aur Unka Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai, published in Lahore, 1898, in the Introduction)
Furthermore, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of the word Hindu as ï¿½chore [thief], dakoo [dacoit], raahzan [waylayer], and ghulam [slave].ï¿½ In another dictionary, Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat (Part One, p. 615) the Persian meaning of the word Hindu is further described as barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black). So these are all derogatory expressions for the translation of the term hindu in the Persian label of the people of India.
So, basically, Hindu is merely a continuation of a Muslim term that became popular only within the last 1300 years. In this way, we can understand that it is not a valid Sanskrit term, nor does it have anything to do with the true Vedic culture or the Vedic spiritual path. No religion ever existed that was called ï¿½Hinduismï¿½ until the Indian people in general placed value on that name, as given by those who dominated over them, and accepted its use. Furthermore, the term has been used to convey demeaning connotations. So is it any wonder that some Indian acharyas and Vedic organizations do not care to use the term?
The real confusion started when the name ï¿½Hinduismï¿½ was used to indicate the religion of the Indian people. The words ï¿½Hinduï¿½ and ï¿½Hinduismï¿½ were used frequently by the British with the effect of focusing on the religious differences between the Muslims and the people who became known as ï¿½Hindusï¿½. This was done with the rather successful intention of creating friction among the people of India. This was in accord with the British policy of divide and rule to make it easier for their continued dominion over the country.
However, we should mention that others who try to justify the word ï¿½Hinduï¿½ present the idea that rishis of old, several thousand years ago, also called central India Hindustan, and the people who lived there Hindus. The following verse, said to be from the Vishnu Purana, Padma Purana and the Bruhaspati Samhita, is provided as proof, yet I am still waiting to learn the exact location where we can find this verse:
Aaasindo Sindhu Paryantham Yasyabharatha Bhoomikah
Mathrubhuh Pithrubhoochaiva sah Vai Hindurithismrithaah
"All I am trying to do is bridge the gap between Jats and Rest of World"
As I shall imagine, so shall I become.
Another verse reads as: Sapta sindhu muthal Sindhu maha samudhram vareyulla Bharatha bhoomi aarkkellamaano Mathru bhoomiyum Pithru bhoomiyumayittullathu, avaraanu hindukkalaayi ariyappedunnathu. Both of these verses more or less indicate that whoever considers the land of Bharatha Bhoomi between Sapta Sindu and the Indian Ocean as his or her motherland and fatherland is known as Hindu. However, here we also have the real and ancient name of India mentioned, which is Bharata Bhoomi. �Bhoomi� (or Bhumi) means Mother Earth, but Bharata is the land of Bharata or Bharata-varsha, which is the land of India. In numerous Vedic references in the Puranas, Mahabharata and other Vedic texts, the area of India is referred to as Bharata-varsha or the land of Bharata and not as Hindustan. The name Bharata-varsha certainly helps capture the roots and glorious past of the country and its people.
Another couple of references that are used, though the exact location of which I am not sure, includes the following:
Himalayam Samaarafya Yaavat Hindu Sarovaram
Tham Devanirmmitham desham Hindustanam Prachakshathe
Himalyam muthal Indian maha samudhram vareyulla
devanirmmithamaya deshaththe Hindustanam ennu parayunnu
These again indicate that the region between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean is called Hindustan. Thus, the conclusion of this is that all Indians are Hindus regardless of their caste and religion. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with that.
Others say that in the Rig Veda, Bharata is referred to as the country of �Sapta Sindhu�, i.e. the country of seven great rivers. This is, of course, acceptable. However, exactly which book and chapter this verse comes from needs to be clarified. Nonetheless, some say that the word �Sindhu� refers to rivers and sea, and not merely to the specific river called �Sindhu�. Furthermore, it is said that in Vedic Sanskrit, according to ancient dictionaries, �sa� was pronounced as �ha�. Thus �Sapta Sindhu� was pronounced as �Hapta Hindu�. So this is how the word �Hindu� is supposed to have come into being. It is also said that the ancient Persians referred to Bharat as �Hapta Hind�, as recorded in their ancient classic �Bem Riyadh�. So this is another reason why some scholars came to believe that the word �Hindu� had its origin in Persia.
Another theory is that the name �Hindu� does not even come from the name Sindhu. Mr. A. Krishna Kumar of Hyderabad, India explains. �This [Sindhu/Hindu] view is untenable since Indians at that time enviably ranked highest in the world in terms of civilization and wealth would not have been without a name. They were not the unknown aborigines waiting to be discovered, identified and Christened by foreigners.� He cites an argument from the book Self-Government in India by N. B. Pavgee, published in 1912. The author tells of an old Swami and Sanskrit scholar Mangal Nathji, who found an ancient Purana known as Brihannaradi in the Sham village, Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It contained this verse:
himalayam samarabhya yavat bindusarovaram
hindusthanamiti qyatam hi antaraksharayogatah
Again the exact location of this verse in the Purana is missing, but Kumar translates it as: �The country lying between the Himalayan mountains and Bindu Sarovara (Cape Comorin sea) is known as Hindusthan by combination of the first letter �hi� of �Himalaya� and the last compound letter �ndu� of the word �Bindu.��
This, of course, is supposed to have given rise to the name �Hindu�, indicating an indigenous origin. The conclusion of which is that people living in this area are thus known as �Hindus�.
So again, in any way these theories may present their information, and in any way you look at it, the name �Hindu� started simply as a bodily and regional designation. The name �Hindu� refers to a location and its people and originally had nothing to do with the philosophies, religion or culture of the people, which could certainly change from one thing to another. It is like saying that all people from India are Indians. Sure, that is acceptable as a name referring to a location, but what about their religion, faith and philosophy? These are known by numerous names according to the various outlooks and beliefs. Thus, they are not all Hindus, as many people who do not follow the Vedic system already object to calling themselves by that name. So �Hindu� is not the most appropriate name of a spiritual path, but the Sanskrit term of Sanatana-dharma is much more accurate. The culture of the ancient Indians and their early history is Vedic culture or Vedic dharma. So it is more appropriate to use a name that is based on that culture for those who follow it, rather than a name that merely addresses the location of a people.
As I shall imagine, so shall I become.
Below are some quotes on the words "Hindu" and "Hinduism." These references are not intended as academic or scholarly proofs or arguments used to win a debate. Because they are only offered as a most general overview, source information is not included. It is also not intended that any of these quotes are necessarily more or less authoritative than others, but rather to provide enough discussion that it's easy for the reader to get a feel for the issue. It's easy to find many such references through internet searches and books. Through one's own research and reflection, each person can draw his or her own conclusions about the meanings and uses of the words "Hindu" and "Hinduism," as well as the words "Dharma" and "Sanatana Dharma."
"The word 'Hindu' occurs nowhere in the classical scriptures of Hinduism. The ancestors of the present day Hindus did not identify themselves as Hindus."
"When Western scholars and Christian missionaries arrived on the scene, the Hindus found their faith tradition 'ism'-ized and its name became 'Hinduism'."
"That even an atheist may be called a Hindu is an example of the fact that Hinduism is far beyond a simple religious system, but actually an extremely diverse and complicated river of evolving philosophies and ancient traditions."
"The word Hindu is not a religious word. It is secular in origin. It is derived from the word Sindhu, which is the name of a major river that flows in the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent. The ancient Greeks and Armenians used to refer the people living beyond the river Sindhu as Hindus and gradually the name stuck. When the Muslims came to the sub continent they called the people living in the region as Hindustanis to distinguish them from the foreign Muslims. Subsequently when the British established their rule, they started calling the local religions collectively under the name of Hinduism."
"Only 180 years ago Raja Ram Mohan Roy coined the word 'Hindu' to describe the huge variety of faiths and sects with similar but not identical philosophies, myths and rituals."
"[There was] no such thing as Hinduism before the British invented the holdall category in the early nineteenth century, and made India seem the home of a 'world religion' as organised and theologically coherent as Christianity and Islam. The concepts of a 'world religion' and 'religion' as we know them now, emerged during the late 18th and early 19th century, as objects of academic study, at a time of widespread secularisation in western Europe. The idea, as inspired by the Enlightenment, was to study religion as a set of beliefs, and to open it up to rational enquiry."
"According to the New Encyclopedia Britannica 20:581, 'Hinduism' was a name given in English language in the Nineteenth Century by the English people to the multiplicity of the beliefs and faiths of the people of the Indus land. The British writers in 1830 gave the word 'Hinduism' to be used as the common name for all the beliefs of the people of India excluding the Muslims and converted Christians."
"According to our ex-President [India] and scholar Dr S Radhakrishnan, the term 'Hindu' had originally a territorial and not credal significance. It implies residence in a well-defined geographical area."
"All scholars agree that the category 'Hinduism' is something created by Orientalists. This obviously does not exclude the existence of an Indian spiritual experience. But at a certain point it was decided to use this label, which during Colonialism became a flag for independence, and after that an attempt was made by the people of India to recognize themselves in a common religion."
"Surprisingly, though Hinduism is a very ancient religion, the word 'Hinduism', which today defines it and distinguishes it from the rest of the religions, is of much later origin. In ancient India you had either a yogi, a bhakta, a tantric, a sanyasi, a sankhya vadin, a vedantin, a lokayata, a rishi, a muni, a pandit, a pragna, a yogini, a devi, a swami, a Saivite, a Vaishnavite, a siddha or Buddha, but no Hindu."
"The Supreme Court [of India] in the course of deciding an appeal in an election petition, has interpreted the meaning of 'Hindutva' and 'Hinduism' as a "synonym of 'Indianisation' -- i.e. development of uniform culture by obliterating the differences between all all cultures co-existing in the country.' The unanimous judgement given by the three-judge bench consisting of Justices J.S. Verma, N.P. Singh and K. Venkataswami, on December 11, 1995, has quoted earlier Supreme Court judgements and opinions of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Dr. Toynbee and others in coming to the conclusion that Hinduism represented a way of life."
"The Supreme Court [of India] bench dealt with the meaning of the word 'Hindutva' or 'Hinduism' when used in election propaganda. The court came to the conclusion that the words 'Hinduism' or 'Hindutva' are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the People of India depicting the way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract, these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract, these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practicing the Hindu religion as a faith. This clearly means that, by itself, the word 'Hinduism' or 'Hindutva' indicates the culture of the people of India as a whole, irrespective of whether they are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews etc."
"The word 'Hinduism' was coined by European travelers and traders in the 16th century."
"It is interesting to note that the word Hindu is neither Sanskrit nor Dravidian and did not originate in India. It was not used by Indians in their descriptions or writings until the 17th century. If we go by the original definition of the word Hindu, any one who lives in the subcontinent is a Hindu and whatever religion he or she practices is Hinduism. The word Hindu is a secular word and literally translated it means Indian and the word Hinduism denotes any religion or religions that are practiced by the multitude of people living in the land beyond the river Indus."
"It is hard to define Hinduism, let alone defend it. This is the reason when someone asks the question, 'Who is a Hindu or what is Hinduism?' a variety of answers are given. The most appropriate answer perhaps is a long pause and then silence. The confusion that has been propagated in the religion over many centuries has made it prohibitive even to define the word Hinduism."
"Unfortunately Hinduism is represented as monolithic. However, there is no essential Hinduism, no single belief system, and no central authority."
"The Hidden Hindus... include at least 1-2 million non-Indian Americans (Caucasians, African-Americans, Hispanics, etc.) who practice Yoga, meditation, vegetarianism, believe in reincarnation and karma, study the Vedic scriptures, etc., but who ï¿½- despite the fact that they are practicing Sanatana Dharma -- will not call themselves 'Hindu', and do not understand that they are part of an ancient and living religious tradition. We need to do everything in our power to bring these two communities together, to bridge this gap."
"It is well known among scholars of South Asian religion that the word 'Hinduism' is a term of convenience--a blanket name for a wide variety of religious practices, beliefs and worldviews that some times have little common ground beyond their Indian origins. Ironically, Hinduism is not an indigenous word to any of the traditions it labels."
"There are legal pronouncements [in India] that Hindus are Indian citizens belonging to a religion born in India. This means Buddhists, Sikhs or Parsis, even those who did not recognize themselves as Hindus, are to be considered Hindus."
"It should be pointed out that the word 'Hindu' is not found in any of the classical writings of India. Nor can it be traced to the classical Indian languages, such as Sanskrit or Tamil. In fact, the word 'Hinduism' has absolutely no origins within India itself. Still, it persists, and traditions as diverse as Shaivism and Jainism, Shaktism and Vaishnavism, have been described as 'Hinduism.' This may work as a matter of convenience, but ultimately it is inaccurate."
Last edited by Samarkadian; March 6th, 2014 at 03:50 PM.
As I shall imagine, so shall I become.