This is Bharat

by Rishi Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:44 pm

http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2013/07/10/noah_addis_future_cities_looks_at_squatter_communities_around_the_world.html

by MaxEntropy_Man Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:47 pm

bharat is the name of a boy or a mythological character from the rAmAyaNam. if you are referring to the country in the article, it is india.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Jul 10, 2013 6:56 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:bharat (also commonly referred to as Hindustan) is the name of a boy or a mythological character from the rAmAyaNam. if you are referring to the present name of the country in the article, it is india.

***Pixed**

by southindian Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:08 pm

bharat (also commonly referred to as Hindustan) is the name of a boy or a mythological character from the rAmAyaNam. if you are referring to the present name of the country in the article, it is india.

** Inputs from Saamiyaar and alleged teacher Max **

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:19 pm

southindian wrote:bharat (also commonly referred to as Hindustan) is the name of a boy or a mythological character from the rAmAyaNam. if you are referring to the present name of the country in the article, it is india.

** Inputs from Saamiyaar and alleged teacher Max **

Hindustan may be objectionable to the Koranists and the MAGs, but Bharat was and is clearly the original name of India (mythological/imaginary/fantasy) based on some reasoning. There was never ever any controversy among regionalists and non-Koranists regarding "Bharath"

Most Indian names are based on mythological characters, anyway.

P.S. Perhaps, India should be renamed Moghalistan...and I bet the MAGs will be all for it.

by southindian Wed Jul 10, 2013 7:30 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
southindian wrote:bharat (also commonly referred to as Hindustan) is the name of a boy or a mythological character from the rAmAyaNam. if you are referring to the present name of the country in the article, it is india.

** Inputs from Saamiyaar and alleged teacher Max **

Hindustan may be objectionable to the Koranists and the MAGs, but Bharat was and is clearly the original name of India (mythological/imaginary/fantasy) based on some reasoning. There was never ever any controversy among regionalists and non-Koranists regarding "Bharath"

Most Indian names are based on mythological characters, anyway.

P.S. Perhaps, India should be renamed Moghalistan...and I bet the MAGs will be all for it.

Yup... but alleged teachers are not aware of this.

by SomeProfile Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:42 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:bharat is the name of a boy or a mythological character from the rAmAyaNam. if you are referring to the country in the article, it is india.

Bharata is the name of the prince in rAmAyaNa. BhArata is the name of the emperor in mahAbhArata. BhArata-varsha or simply BhArata has been the name of the country for a lot longer than India, thousands of years longer. Important point to note: the country has been referred to as BhArata continuously, for centuries, till date in most native languages of India. It is similar to how the name Chennai has been used in the local language continuously for many decades, while Madras remained in parallel use in non-local languages. So, kindly keep your parochial narrow-minded prejudices out of this discussion.

by Kayalvizhi Wed Jul 10, 2013 9:53 pm

>> Bharat was and is clearly the original name of India

Whatever your source for this name, there is no evidence Tamilnadu was part of it.

You can call your country whatever name we don't care.

by nevada Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:50 pm

Bharat was known as Hindikaaran in Tamil Nadu. Over time, the country named after him came to be known as Hindia.

by Idéfix Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:09 am

SomeProfile wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:bharat is the name of a boy or a mythological character from the rAmAyaNam. if you are referring to the country in the article, it is india.

Bharata is the name of the prince in rAmAyaNa. BhArata is the name of the emperor in mahAbhArata. BhArata-varsha or simply BhArata has been the name of the country for a lot longer than India, thousands of years longer. Important point to note: the country has been referred to as BhArata continuously, for centuries, till date in most native languages of India. It is similar to how the name Chennai has been used in the local language continuously for many decades, while Madras remained in parallel use in non-local languages. So, kindly keep your parochial narrow-minded prejudices out of this discussion.

I may be wrong about this, but I think Arjuna's descendant in the mahAbhArata is also called bharata; the country (or anything else) named after him is bhArata, and the Sanskrit term for "bharata's country" is bharata-varsha, not bhArata-varsha. My Sanskrit is rather rusty, but that's why I think the Hindu invocation chanted before any ceremony performed on the subcontinent goes "bharata-varshE" not "bhArata-varshE."

Yes, bhArata has been the name of the land far longer than India. It also has another thing going for it: it was coined by the locals, not foreigners. India is the Latin version of a name foreigners gave the land based on the first major river they encounter after entering the country. There is a lot more to the country than that one river.

Despite its foreign origins, though, I personally prefer the name India.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:09 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> Bharat was and is clearly the original name of India

Whatever your source for this name, there is no evidence Tamilnadu was part of it.

You can call your country whatever name we don't care.

Can you cite the earliest evidence for YOUR "TamilNadu" name ?

Are you trying to compete with Ayatollah Poop-al-Rashmunullah for stupidity?

by Kayalvizhi Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:16 am

"thamizh kooru nallulakam"

by SomeProfile Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:46 am

Idéfix wrote:I may be wrong about this, but I think Arjuna's descendant in the mahAbhArata is also called bharata; the country (or anything else) named after him is bhArata, and the Sanskrit term for "bharata's country" is bharata-varsha, not bhArata-varsha. My Sanskrit is rather rusty, but that's why I think the Hindu invocation chanted before any ceremony performed on the subcontinent goes "bharata-varshE" not "bhArata-varshE."

I always thought the country was called BhArata-varsha even before Arjuna's time, being named after Arjuna's ancestor.

It IS BhArata-varsha. What you are thinking about is Bharata-khaNDa. Usually, the invocation goes like this: jambu-dvIpe bharata-khaNDe bhArata-varshe... I have no idea when the khaNDa (continent) is Bharata and the varsha (country) is BhArata. May be Indo-gaaru can shed some light.

I am comfortable with both India and BhArat. It really depends on the language I am speaking. I use "India" when speaking English and South Indian languages, and BhArat when speaking in Hindi. I simply can't imagine doing vice versa. Would feel too weird.

by Kayalvizhi Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:53 am

>> I always thought the country was called BhArata-varsha

Can you tell me if there was ever a country identity for South Asia or current artificial entity called "India" before asbout 1900?

I can definitely say there is no cultural or national identity for South Asia or current artificial entity called "India" in classic Tamil literature.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:57 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:"thamizh kooru nallulakam"

Stop bullshitting....

Show me the earliest recognition "Tamil Nadu" that you found as your "Thamizh Kooru Nallulagam"

Proof or evidence please...

again stop bullshitting...

by Idéfix Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:03 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:I can definitely say there is no cultural or national identity for South Asia or current artificial entity called "India" in classic Tamil literature.

There certainly is a cultural identify for all of the Indian subcontinent that dates back millennia. I don't know what you mean by "classic Tamil literature," but the classics of Sanskrit literature have been translated into Tamil just as they have been into most modern Indian languages, and even the earliest known Tamil works indicate rich cultural interaction between Tamil people and those of the rest of India.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:07 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:>> I always thought the country was called BhArata-varsha

Can you tell me if there was ever a country identity for South Asia or current artificial entity called "India" before asbout 1900?

I can definitely say there is no cultural or national identity for South Asia or current artificial entity called "India" in classic Tamil literature.

You are right about "India" No one recognized that word till the Europeans showed up in 1450s.

But, Bharat is recognized in any number of literature and religious books for several thousands of years - to refer to the land from Taxila to Kanyakumari.

by Kayalvizhi Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:23 am

Educating Uppili

"வடவேங்கடந் தென்குமரியாயிடைத் தமிழ் கூறு நல்லுலகம்"

- தொல்காப்பியப்பாயிரம்

by Kayalvizhi Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:27 am

>> I don't know what you mean by "classic Tamil literature,"

First I am looking at the Third Tamil Academy (3rd Tamil sangam) about 2000 years ago. I am also looing at 1000 year old lit of the Second Cholan and Pandyan dynasties.

No indication of Bharat as a country or as related to tamils

by Kayalvizhi Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:28 am

>> Bharat is recognized in any number of literature and religious books for several thousands of years - to refer to the land from Taxila to Kanyakumari

Not in classic Tamil lit

by Idéfix Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:40 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:You are right about "India" No one recognized that word till the Europeans showed up in 1450s.

The term India is Greek and Latin, and was used by Greek and Roman historians to refer to all lands east of the Sindhu river. From Latin, the term made its way to most Western European languages; that is why Columbus thought he landed in "India."

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:41 am

Kayalvizhi wrote:Educating Uppili

"வடவேங்கடந் தென்குமரியாயிடைத் தமிழ் கூறு நல்லுலகம்"

- தொல்காப்பியப்பாயிரம்

VadaVenkadam was built 1500 years ago: "Bhoga Srinivasa Murthy idol was donated to the sacred shrine by the then Pallava queen Samavai some 1,500 years ago."

TholKaappium was written in 300 CE - a good 200 years before the temple was built.

So Tholkaapium must be referring to some other temple and not Tirupathi.

Besides I asked the earliest period 'Tamil Nadu" was ruled as country. Not where all tamil was spoken.

by Kris Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:03 am

Idéfix wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:You are right about "India" No one recognized that word till the Europeans showed up in 1450s.
The term India is Greek and Latin, and was used by Greek and Roman historians to refer to all lands east of the Sindhu river. From Latin, the term made its way to most Western European languages; that is why Columbus thought he landed in "India."

>>>The earlier origin I think is from the Persians, referring to people who lived beyond the Sindhu, which morphed into Hindu (Persian language change). I do remember 'bhArata varshe' from religious rituals. My understanding is that name has been around pretty much forever. I thought it was the name of an ancient tribe.

by Captain Bhankas Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:15 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:bharat is the name of a boy or a mythological character from the rAmAyaNam. if you are referring to the country in the article, it is india.

jana gana mana adhi naayak jaya hai
bhaarat bhagya vidhata

there is nothing wrong in calling this country bhaarat.

by Hellsangel Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:55 am

Except for people with a Tamil chip on their shoulders, I don't think anyone gets worked up about Bharat. Look at Indian currency. They all say Bharat in Hindi. Most Indian languages refer to India as Bharat. The Arabs refer to India as Al Hind. The French call it L'Inde but most English speaking countries refer to it as India. That's all.

This is the same as Germany being called Deutschland in German and Allemagne in French.

by truthbetold Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:45 am

India constitution starts with India i.e. Bharat. why the fight?

by truthbetold Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:49 am

Uppili ,
koranists should not have any problem as they use.Hindustan more commonly than any other group.

by Jebediah Mburuburu Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:59 am

truthbetold wrote:Uppili ,
koranists should not have any problem as they use.Hindustan more commonly than any other group.

what's "use.Hindustan?" a website?

by truthbetold Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:01 am

Some mythological facts:
Bharata , the emperor, was the son of sakuntala and dusyanthudu. he was the grandson of viswamitra and menaka.
viswamitra was.born at the time jamadagni , father of parusurama.
Bharata varsha came from this emperor (before rama ).
do not confuse him with brother of rama..

another notable Bharata was an early Jain king and son of emperor rishiba
as pointed out by many above Bharat was commonly used in Indian languages.to refer to India.

by truthbetold Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:04 am

[quote="Jebediah Mburuburu"]

truthbetold wrote:Uppili ,
koranists should not have any problem as they use.Hindustan more commonly than any other group.

what's "use.Hindustan?" a website?[/quote
jm,
stfu. you do not belong in this discussion. go find an old playboy.

by Jebediah Mburuburu Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:05 am

truthbetold wrote:Some mythological facts:
Bharata , the emperor, was the son of sakuntala and dusyanthudu. he was the grandson of viswamitra and menaka.
viswamitra was.born at the time jamadagni , father of parusurama.
Bharata varsha came from this emperor (before rama ).
do not confuse him with brother of rama..

another notable Bharata was an early Jain king and son of emperor rishiba
as pointed out by many above Bharat was commonly used in Indian languages.to refer to India.

i see an interesting oxymoron.

by Jebediah Mburuburu Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:07 am

truthbetold wrote:
Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Uppili ,
koranists should not have any problem as they use.Hindustan more commonly than any other group.
what's "use.Hindustan?" a website?[/quote
jm,
stfu. you do not belong in this discussion. go find an old playboy.

please control yourself and tell me about use.Hindustan.

by Idéfix Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:08 am

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Uppili ,
koranists should not have any problem as they use.Hindustan more commonly than any other group.
what's "use.Hindustan?" a website?

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Jebji, you made a funny, and I can't stop laughing.

by Hellsangel Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:14 am

Idéfix wrote:
Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Uppili ,
koranists should not have any problem as they use.Hindustan more commonly than any other group.
what's "use.Hindustan?" a website?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Jebji, you made a funny, and I can't stop laughing.

Achachan Jebz should audition for Off Their Rockers.

by southindian Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:16 am

Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Uppili ,
koranists should not have any problem as they use.Hindustan more commonly than any other group.
what's "use.Hindustan?" a website?

GrandPa, you and Rashmun make a perfect couple.

by Guest Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:36 am

Idéfix wrote:
Jebediah Mburuburu wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Uppili ,
koranists should not have any problem as they use.Hindustan more commonly than any other group.
what's "use.Hindustan?" a website?
Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Jebji, you made a funny, and I can't stop laughing.

OMG so phunny. hahahahahhahaahaahahaahahaahahahahah X 10000. hahahahah, excuse me, hahahaaahahahaahaaha jebji you rocku! viTTy viTTy viTty vitTy vittY VtTy

by Nila Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:18 pm

Bharatha is Sakuntala and Dushyanta's son. He is believed to expand India. You ppl know no history. Iyyo!

by Kayalvizhi Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:42 pm

>>>>> VadaVenkadam was built 1500 years ago: "Bhoga Srinivasa Murthy idol was donated to the sacred shrine by the then Pallava queen Samavai some 1,500 years ago."
TholKaappium was written in 300 CE - a good 200 years before the temple was built.

Thollappiam was referring to the Vengata malai (mountain)

by Kayalvizhi Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:45 pm

>>>> Besides I asked the earliest period 'Tamil Nadu" was ruled as country. Not where all tamil was spoken..

''நும் நாடு யாதேனில்
தமிழ்நா டென்று ரைக்க'' -- இளம்பூரணார்

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:33 pm

Kayalvizhi wrote:>>>> Besides I asked the earliest period 'Tamil Nadu" was ruled as country. Not where all tamil was spoken..

''நும் நாடு யாதேனில்
தமிழ்நா டென்று ரைக்க'' -- இளம்பூரணார்

நம் நாடு யாதென்று கேட்கின்
பாரதம் என்றஎ உரைத்திடு - -- மரத்தடி சாமியார்

by Kayalvizhi Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:09 am

There are people who live in ignorant bliss. Uppili is one.

by seven Fri Jul 12, 2013 1:09 am

and then there are people who suffer from psychosis. KV is one.

by Kris Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:17 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kayalvizhi wrote:>> I always thought the country was called BhArata-varsha

Can you tell me if there was ever a country identity for South Asia or current artificial entity called "India" before asbout 1900?

I can definitely say there is no cultural or national identity for South Asia or current artificial entity called "India" in classic Tamil literature.

You are right about "India" No one recognized that word till the Europeans showed up in 1450s.

But, Bharat is recognized in any number of literature and religious books for several thousands of years - to refer to the land from Taxila to Kanyakumari.

>>>>I couldn't recall this, but had to google (Findings Copy-pasted below)

"uttaram yatsamudrasya himadrescaiva daksinam, varsam tadbharatam nama bharati yatra santatih"

The country north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is Bharatam, where Bharata's descendants live.

by Guest Fri Jul 12, 2013 3:33 am

Kris wrote:
>>>>I couldn't recall this, but had to google (Findings Copy-pasted below)

"uttaram yatsamudrasya himadrescaiva daksinam, varsam tadbharatam nama bharati yatra santatih"

The country north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is Bharatam, where Bharata's descendants live.

+1

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:28 am

Kris wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kayalvizhi wrote:>> I always thought the country was called BhArata-varsha

Can you tell me if there was ever a country identity for South Asia or current artificial entity called "India" before asbout 1900?

I can definitely say there is no cultural or national identity for South Asia or current artificial entity called "India" in classic Tamil literature.

You are right about "India" No one recognized that word till the Europeans showed up in 1450s.

But, Bharat is recognized in any number of literature and religious books for several thousands of years - to refer to the land from Taxila to Kanyakumari.

>>>>I couldn't recall this, but had to google (Findings Copy-pasted below)

"uttaram yatsamudrasya himadrescaiva daksinam, varsam tadbharatam nama bharati yatra santatih"

The country north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is Bharatam, where Bharata's descendants live.

I heard that these days Home Depot sells a new twisted Screw-nail that is specially designed to hammer into higher-percentage cement concrete structures.

by Kayalvizhi Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:20 am

truthbetold wrote:Some mythological facts:
Bharata , the emperor, was the son of sakuntala and dusyanthudu. he was the grandson of viswamitra and menaka.
viswamitra was.born at the time jamadagni , father of parusurama.
Bharata varsha came from this emperor (before rama ).
do not confuse him with brother of rama..

another notable Bharata was an early Jain king and son of emperor rishiba
as pointed out by many above Bharat was commonly used in Indian languages.to refer to India.

All these people are from northern part of South asia. So call that area Bharat. Tamil Nadu is not part of it. Case closed.

by pravalika nanda Fri Jul 12, 2013 11:59 am

Captain Bhankas wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:bharat is the name of a boy or a mythological character from the rAmAyaNam. if you are referring to the country in the article, it is india.

jana gana mana adhi naayak jaya hai
bhaarat bhagya vidhata

there is nothing wrong in calling this country bhaarat.

** Yes, nothing wrong with that but after reading the posts by Max and Idefix I wonder if it is politically correct to call India "Bharat." I suspect that anyone who goes about referring to "India" as "Bharat" will be looked down upon by the liberals and various minorities as over-zealous nationalists or worse, hindu zealots.

by Guest Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:25 pm

pravalika nanda wrote:
Captain Bhankas wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:bharat is the name of a boy or a mythological character from the rAmAyaNam. if you are referring to the country in the article, it is india.

jana gana mana adhi naayak jaya hai
bhaarat bhagya vidhata

there is nothing wrong in calling this country bhaarat.

** Yes, nothing wrong with that but after reading the posts by Max and Idefix I wonder if it is politically correct to call India "Bharat." I suspect that anyone who goes about referring to "India" as "Bharat" will be looked down upon by the liberals and various minorities as over-zealous nationalists or worse, hindu zealots.

let them look down. you cannot make everyone happy all the time. democracy is neither about mob rule nor about minority rule. calling india bharath does not violate your fundamental rights. but, yeah, a liberal like you would definitely light a candle at india gate in protest. and soon politicians like kejriwal of mango man party will join you in support. if you are lucky, baba ramdev (who, i hear, is very tall) with jump into the picture. the only regret is that no naxal will kidnap you -- but that moment can wait.

by pravalika nanda Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:32 pm

Huh, I'm okay with calling India "Bharath." I think that anyone who does so will get in trouble with the PC-crowd.

Is he tall? I will look him up.

by Guest Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:37 pm

if you are OK then everything is OK. please not to worry about PC crowd. ya look him up. i think 6 feet plus. oops that's amitabh bacchan disease. ok 5'11"?

by Sponsored content