Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Meaning of the word Hindu ( Black, Thief, Slave?)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Meaning of the word Hindu ( Black, Thief, Slave?)

    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
    his rejoinder:-


    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.

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Samarkadian For This Useful Post:

    JSRana (April 25th, 2012), pankajpotaliya (May 5th, 2014), Prikshit (April 24th, 2012), rajpaldular (July 12th, 2013), ravinderjeet (April 21st, 2012), satyenderdeswal (April 20th, 2012), Sure (April 24th, 2012)

  3. #2
    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
    (fidelity).

    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.

  4. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Samarkadian For This Useful Post:

    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)

  5. #3
    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.''

    Thanks


  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DrRajpalSingh For This Useful Post:

    Prikshit (April 24th, 2012), rajpaldular (July 12th, 2013)

  7. #4
    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?

  8. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to upendersingh For This Useful Post:

    cooljat (April 21st, 2012), cutejaatsandeep (April 24th, 2012), deshi-jat (April 25th, 2012), Moar (April 21st, 2012), rajpaldular (July 12th, 2013), Sure (April 24th, 2012), ygulia (April 24th, 2012)

  9. #5
    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.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Moar For This Useful Post:

    ashe (April 24th, 2012), deshi-jat (April 25th, 2012), rajpaldular (July 12th, 2013)

  11. #6
    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.

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Moar For This Useful Post:

    cooljat (April 24th, 2012), cutejaatsandeep (April 24th, 2012), DrRajpalSingh (April 26th, 2012), lrburdak (April 25th, 2012), rajpaldular (July 12th, 2013), ygulia (April 24th, 2012)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •