Absurd use of terms, e.g. : Hindu Rate of Growth

[sarang]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

This note from Prof. Vaidyanathan of IIM Bangalore on 'hindu rate of growth' is worth reading and spreading by us.

From: Vaidyanathan R
Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2012 12:19 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Hindu Rate of Grwoth

Dear Sri Sukumar

I am a regular reader of your paper and also encourage my MBA students to read it to have an understanding of Indian Business/ Finance etc

Many of the in-depth analysis in your paper is very good.

But I find the usage of “Hindu Rate of growth” in your short edits and even news stories is unacceptable.

It was a “off the cuff” remark by Raj Krishna in a seminar about sluggish growth rates due to Nehruvian policies.

To use it in an esteemed news paper like yours is surprising since there is no correlation or relationship established between a religion and economic growth rate

If a professional cook like Samir uses it I can understand since he may neither know about Economics nor Hinduism [nor about Raj Krishna]

But I find it getting used in your news reports on Economic matters—like Comparing with Growth rates of other countries etc

I have additional problems with that usage—lots of my students who are post-80 born do not know much about sixties/seventies or even the wry sense of humor of Raj Krishna

They ask me repeatedly-- why a reputed paper like Mint calls the past growth rate as “Hindu Growth rate” when I try to talk about Permit/license/quota raj. Also one young girl student asked me—why not call the recent 8% growth rate as “ Hindu growth rate”

Plus many of my White American colleagues are intrigued by that usage and even today one person sent me a mail asking why that is used.
Many of them read your paper since I have recommended it to them based on their WSJ experience.

I am only asking you to seriously consider this issue and stop using that phrase when there is neither theoretical nor empirical justification for that

If yours is a general news paper meant for flippant coverage/ 3rd page crowd –I would not even have written this note.

Needless to add I expect a response from your desk

Thanking you

Dr.R.Vaidyanathan
Professor of finance
IIMB

 

[Somayaji.S]

Hindu rate of Growth

Now a days slowly in many communications this term,"Hindu rate of growth" is used for the Independent India's rate of growth,when Nehru family members were the Prime ministers.


It is an Insult-may be deliberate or "Innocuous" --to the third largest Religion of the world.May be there is an "Insinuation" also.In the last 2000years the first and the second most "populous" Religions have grown at more faster rate than Hindu religion.Hindu Religion and Judaism have no concept of "Ritualistic Conversion" nor the concept of "Soliciting".In many Hindu Temples in USA,there is a an announcement poster "No Soliciting".


Economic Policies have nothing to do with Religion.

 

[suraju06]

COUNTER POINT

I agree with the protest of Prof. Vaidyanathan in that the term "Hindu rate of Growth" has an element of western arrogance about it. May be Raj Krishna who originally coined the term was given to westernised thinking. But Nehruvian economics was not all buncum either. Nehru was not a fool to have stuck to controls and licenses when the whole crowd of his"friends and well-wishers" were crying hoarse to give up all that and go the western free-market economy way. Nehru had his own priorities. And his priorities were right for the country at that point of time. When we look back we realize how realistic and well -informed was he about the course of events to come. It is just a fashion to mock at our elder generation for whatever it had.

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

COUNTER POINT

I agree with the protest of Prof. Vaidyanathan in that the term "Hindu rate of Growth" has an element of western arrogance about it. May be Raj Krishna who originally coined the term was given to westernised thinking. But Nehruvian economics was not all buncum either. Nehru was not a fool to have stuck to controls and licenses when the whole crowd of his"friends and well-wishers" were crying hoarse to give up all that and go the western free-market economy way. Nehru had his own priorities. And his priorities were right for the country at that point of time. When we look back we realize how realistic and well -informed was he about the course of events to come. It is just a fashion to mock at our elder generation for whatever it had.

Cheers.

That is the most profound statement. It is foolish to judge the past with todays value. Those were correct for the time.

 

[suraju06]

Counter point (contd...)

That is the most profound statement. It is foolish to judge the past with todays value. Those were correct for the time.

1. It was the time when the nations were divided on stupid ideologies and isms. One group called itself the champion of freedom in every thing and was swearing by it. The real manipulators behind the scene were the handful of corporates.
2. The other group believed in state power though the leaders were plain stupid. It made a virtue of the principle of "one generation sacrificing for the following generations" and under the cover of it denied the basic rights to their citizens.
3. If the first group had economic prosperity--a dubious one, a result of the good fortune of having fertile well irrigated land, looted capital, imported slave labour etc-- and the advantage it gave, like a large army, deadly weapons etc., the other group had the frightening monolith of a society which thought, ate and acted in predetermined ways by the all powerful Govt./party. The threat by the first group of total annihilation was met by the second group's survivability and second strike capability. The super efficient weapons were matched and check-mated by the horrible prospect of human waves marching forward with determination to overwhelm.
4. A disaster was just waiting to happen. Many a time we came very near it and missed it happening by a hairs breadth.
5. In the many eyeball to eyeball confrontations every time some one blinked first, the hand was retracted from the button of destruction and humanity survived waiting for the next such moment.
6.All this madness had just one "noble purpose"--protecting human rights and freedom of individual enterprise. How stupid we had been!!

It is in this scenario that Nehru got the responsibility to lead this country. He could have easily chosen the free-market philosophy like many other contemporaries as India needed a much larger capital than the other enthusiasts for freemarket economy. Indigenous capital formation was slow and unpredictable. He had the other option of converting his party into another communist party and could have done away with all the irritating checks and balances of a democratic republic. He had the charisma and the country's polity was in its infant stage. He could have become another Mao and could have got away with it. He decided deliberately on a middle path. A politician he was and so called it Democratic Socialism (the word Socialism had a revolutionary aura about it and people adored it). The right word for Nehru's ism would have been "pragmatism". He knew that India can not remain as a nation with an autocratic single party system, that it can not permit reckless flooding of the economy with foreign capital, that it is going to be painfully slow process of indigenous capital formation for a long time to come. He knew when India reaches the stage where it's people's own stake reaches formidable levels, the country would be ready to allow capital inflows freely. Then will start the leap towards the position of the "world's fastest growing stable economy".

Nehru was lucky in that he was able to carry the party with him. Though there was dissent he could manage it.

Without looking at all these, to say Nehruvian policies were a drag on the nation would be a shallow statement.

 

[sarang]

The idiots should have called 'secular rate of growth' and not 'hindu rate of growth'. When bharat was mainly hindu, it was a prosperous, rich and equitable (fair to all parties as dictated by reason and conscience) society.

When will we get back to a dharmic society?

 

[prasad1]

Was there a "bharat" with power to formulate laws and govern before independence? Yes in our dreams.

 

[zebra16]

Was there a "bharat" with power to formulate laws and govern before independence? Yes in our dreams.

I wish you had done some searching before posting this message. Here is a link for starters:
Law of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indians or Bharat-vasis were not exactly jumping up and down the trees just before independence.

 

[sangom]

India that is Bharat, has still got very large natural resources and, luckily for the foreign interests, India has also a good percentage of people who can think only the way the western people think. The west has gone nearly bankrupt, adhering to their much-touted economic policies. When USA & the European countries got wind of their impending decline, they arrived at the GATT and WTO which are nothing but instruments to exploit the natural resources of the so-called third-world countries in order to make the lives of the people of the western countries comfortable. Now they want countries like India to further liberalize (open up the economies) in order that they can continue to make profits and enrich themselves when their alternatives have all but disappeared.

I wish we had a visionary like Nehru or Sardar Patel now to steer India out of the utter ruin towards which it seems to be going. China has not yet opened its economy completely but it supplies almost 67% of the world markets. Can India not follow a similar line?

I personally feel grateful to Mamata Bannerjee for some her principles.

 

[prasad1]

I wish you had done some searching before posting this message. Here is a link for starters:
Law of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Indians or Bharat-vasis were not exactly jumping up and down the trees just before independence.

Mr. Zebra,
Before wearing your emotions on your sleve, you should check with your intellect. There never was a unified country of Hindu dominated "bharat". Even Asoka's empire did not include many of the present Indian states. The Ashok's empire was called Magadh and was Buddhist in religion. Check your facts.

Your reference to Hindu law does not relate to "Bharat". When you defend something stand on firm ground or you will fall just as you did in this case.

 

[prasanth1]

I wish we had a visionary like Nehru or Sardar Patel now to steer India out of the utter ruin towards which it seems to be going. China has not yet opened its economy completely but it supplies almost 67% of the world markets. Can India not follow a similar line?

India and China are impossible to compare. China is dominated predominantly by a single language and a single cultural group (Han Chinese) and a political system in which decisions can take place quickly. This allows for consistency and efficiency, which is impossible in India due the glacial pace of bureaucracy and the millions of competing interests acting within the country.

 

[suraju06]

...... There never was a unified country of Hindu dominated "bharat". Even Asoka's empire did not include many of the present Indian states. The Ashok's empire was called Magadh and was Buddhist in religion. Check your facts.

Your reference to Hindu law does not relate to "Bharat". When you defend something stand on firm ground or you will fall just as you did in this case.

1.Bharat Varsh, the subcontinent, had many independent kingdoms and principalities which were populated predominently by Hindus.
2.While Ashoka converted to Budhdhism there is no evidence to show that all his subjects also joined Budhdhism. There is reason to believe that Magadh was a Hindu Country ruled by a Budhdhist King.
3.If the whole is equal to the sum of its parts Bharat Varsh was a landmass predominently populated by Hindus.
4.If a citizen of the erstwhile Pandya kingdom down south, worshipping daily the Azhagan/Sundararaja Perumal was able to visit Badrinath in the Himalayas to have darshan of Badrinarayan and do a ritualistic offering to his manes; If an old lady living in the remote Terai of Nepal had a cherished desire to visit Kashi and then Rameswaram to fullfil a religious vow, what is wrong in calling this population as a homogeneous Hindu religion?

It is all the western ignorance which denies any credit to the Hindu culture, harping on the apparent ever changing political divisions within Bharat Varsha.

Yes. Bharat was Hindu and had a glorious culture(culture includes, morals, ethics, values and polity-the single word for all this being 'civilization'). To deny this is prejudice.

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

1.Bharat Varsh, the subcontinent, had many independent kingdoms and principalities which were populated predominently by Hindus.
2.While Ashoka converted to Budhdhism there is no evidence to show that all his subjects also joined Budhdhism. There is reason to believe that Magadh was a Hindu Country ruled by a Budhdhist King.
3.If the whole is equal to the sum of its parts Bharat Varsh was a landmass predominently populated by Hindus.
4.When a citizen of the erstwhile Pandya kingdom down south, worshipping daily the Azhagan/Sundararaja Perumal was able to visit Badrinath in the Himalayas to have darshan of Badrinarayan and do a ritualistic offering to his manes; If an old lady living in the remote Terai of Nepal had a cherished desire to visit Kashi and then Rameswaram to fullfil a religious vow, what is wrong in calling this population as a homogeneous Hindu religion?

It is all the western ignorance which denies any credit to the Hindu culture, harping on the apparent ever changing political divisions within Bharat Varsha.

Yes. Bharat was Hindu and had a glorious culture(culture includes, morals, ethics, values and polity-the single world for all this being 'civilization'). To deny this is prejudice.

Cheers.

Rajuji,
I generally agree with your philosophy.
But in this instance to say there was a country called Bharat ruled by only hindus and comprising of only Hindus before independence of 1947 is stretching the truth.

 

[ozone]

Rajuji,
I generally agree with your philosophy.
But in this instance to say there was a country called Bharat ruled by only hindus and comprising of only Hindus before independence of 1947 is stretching the truth.

Dear Shri Prasad,
The words used were - landmass predominently populated by Hindus, and not the way you see it.
Further, your message was a taunt to the capability and unity both of which has been refuted. If you have something to add, it must be supplemented with facts rather than mere assertions.

 

[prasad1]

Dear Shri Prasad,
The words used were - landmass predominently populated by Hindus, and not the way you see it.
Further, your message was a taunt to the capability and unity both of which has been refuted. If you have something to add, it must be supplemented with facts rather than mere assertions.

My response was to the statement:

The idiots should have called 'secular rate of growth' and not 'hindu rate of growth'. When bharat was mainly hindu, it was a prosperous, rich and equitable (fair to all parties as dictated by reason and conscience) society.

According to Wiki:

A country is a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated peoples with distinct political characteristics. Regardless of the physical geography, in the modern internationally accepted legal definition as defined by the League of Nations in 1937 and reaffirmed by the United Nations in 1945, a resident of a country is subject to the independent exercise of legal jurisdiction.

If you meant to say Hindus were

prosperous, rich and equitable (fair to all parties as dictated by reason and conscience) society.

It is preposterous and a lie.

Before you get your underwear all tied up in knots, check your facts. I am not asserting any thing new, I am just setting the facts right. If you think problems of India are due to other religions only, then you have blinders, and you have problem with facts.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Mr. Prasad,

I generally agree with your philosophy.
But in this instance to say there was a country called Bharat ruled by only hindus and comprising of only Hindus before independence of 1947 is stretching the truth.

What I said was only as much a philosophy as your statement of rejoinder to Mr. Ozone and Zebra16. I think there was some communication gap. Because you have subsequently said this:

My response was to the statement:
The idiots should have called 'secular rate of growth' and not 'hindu rate of growth'. When bharat was mainly hindu, it was a prosperous, rich and equitable (fair to all parties as dictated by reason and conscience) society.

I find that there was no claim here that Bharat was a country. The word used was only 'society' as you have yourself said it. Bharat was rich and prosperous no doubt as it has been chronicled. Whether it was an equitable society is debatable. You can take a position on that depending on your ideological proclivities.

But then why this stridency?

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

In the never-never land you can imagine anything. When historical proof is not needed, any one can invent any greatness.

The early Neolithic culture in South Asia is represented by the Mehrgarh culture which began in 7000 BC, now in Baluchistan, Pakistan. The Mehrgarh community were mostly pastoral, lived in mud houses, wove baskets and tended to goats and their farms. By 5500 BC, pottery began to appear and later chalcolithic implements began to appear. By 2000 BC, the settlement was abandoned.


Late Neolithic cultures sprang up in the Indus Valley region between 6000 BC and 2000 BC (see below), and in southern India between 2800 BC and 1200 BC.

The Vedic civilization is the Indo-Aryan culture associated with the Vedas, which are some of the oldest extant Indo-European texts, orally composed in Vedic Sanskrit. But this is a misconception for the simple reason that vedas were the earliest text that originated in India. The exact connection of the genesis of this civilization with the Indus Valley civilization on one hand, and a possible Indo-Aryan migration on the other hand, is the subject of disputes. Early Vedic society was largely pastoral. After the Rigveda, the society became increasingly agricultural, and was organized around four Varnas, or classes. Several small kingdoms and tribes merged to form a few large ones, such as the Kuru and Panchala, some of which were often at war with each other.


In addition to the principle texts of Hinduism, (the Vedas), the great Indian epics, the Ramayana and Mahabharata, the latter of which constitutes the longest poem in the world after the Kyrgyz Manas, are said to have their ultimate origins during this period, from an oral tradition of unwritten Bardic recitation. The Bhagavad Gita, another primary text of Hinduism, is contained within the Mahabharata.


Early Indo-Aryan presence probably corresponds, in part, to Ochre Coloured Pottery, archaeologically. The kingdom of the Kurus marks flowering of the Vedic civilization, corresponding to the Black and Red Ware and the beginning of the Iron Age in Northwestern India begins, around 1000 BC, likely also contemporary with the composition of the Atharvaveda. Painted Grey Ware spread over much of Northern India marks the Middle Vedic period, followed by a wave of urbanization that occurred across the Indian sub-continent, from Afghanistan to Bengal, in the 6th century BC. A number of kingdoms and oligarchies, often called republics, emerged across the Indo-Gangetic plain and the northern part of South India during this period. 16 of them, called Mahajanapadas (great lands), are referred to in the ancient literature of the period.

Where was Bharat?
We have a rich heritage. But that richness is not a measurable in terms of money of the people. What was the GDP? Just because we have Ambanies, we can not claim India to be rich country.

I would like to see some realism, not this wasteful discussion.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Mr. Prasad,

Please refer to your post #17:

When you want to determine whether there existed a Hindu society called Bharat you have many options:

1. You can go back to Adam and Eve’s time (if you believe in that story told in Bible) and ask rhetorically where was Bharat and if Bharat existed where were Hindus?

2. If you do not believe in the Biblical story you can go back to the time of samashti srushti spoken of in the Hindu Religious literature and ask where was Bharat when Chatur Mukha Brahma started the srushti. That again would be a rhetoric question.

3. You can take a grand view of the long continuum called Time and
Starting from BC 7000 keep asking questions as you have done narrating the history as centuries passed one by one as to where was Bharat and where were Hindus.
In this process you would have covered an anient period of about 9000 years. But all that would be of no use to the problem in hand. The question is whether there was a homogeneous Hindu society in the land mass that is popularly known as Bharat or India or Hindusthan. The question becomes relevant only when it is asked in the context of organized, clearly geographically and politically demarcated countries as we know them today. The ancient times you have spoken about are all periods when there were human settlements which were nebulous because the people were largely hunter gatherers who were progressing towards an agricultural economy.

I think we should start looking at organized settlements in the subcontinent which can be called countries from the time of Guptas of 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Century AD. And there are written chronicles which speak about the Hindu society in those times. If you read Fa Hien (337-422 AD),Xuan Zang or Yijing all Chinese pilgrims who visited India during the time of Guptas and thereafter, there is enough evidence to show that the Hindu society was prosperous and modern. In fact, these travel records contributed to the development of a unique perception of India among members of the Chinese clergy. For some, India was a sacred, even Utopian, realm. Others saw India as a mystical land inhabited by “civilized” and sophisticated people. In the context of Chinese discourse on foreign peoples, who were often described as uncivilized and barbaric, these accounts significantly elevated the Chinese perception of Indian society. These travel records are important historical resources for several reasons. First, they provide meticulous accounts of the nature of Buddhist doctrines, rituals, and monastic institutions in South, Central, and Southeast Asia. Second, they contain vital information about the social and political conditions in South Asia and kingdoms situated on the routes between China and India. Third, they offer remarkable insights into cross-cultural perceptions and interactions. Additionally, these accounts throw light on the arduous nature of long-distance travel, commercial exchanges, and the relationship between Buddhist pilgrims and itinerant merchants. Thus Fa Hien wrote “Throughout the country, the houses of the people stand apart like (separate) stars, and each family has a small tope (i.e., pagoda) reared in front of its door. The smallest of these may be twenty cubits high, or rather more. They make (in monasteries) rooms for monks from all quarters, the use of which is given to traveling monks who may arrive, and are provided with whatever else they require.” And please read this interesting information: Daozheng, one of the Chinese monks who accompanied Faxian, was so moved by the Buddhist sites and monastic institutions in
India that he decided not to return to China. “From now until I attain Buddhahood,”
Daozheng is supposed to have remarked, “I wish that I not be reborn in the borderland.”
The term borderland here means China.

Based on Fahian’s "A Record of the Buddhist Kingdoms" I reproduce below his perceptions of the Hindu/Budhdhist society of India:
“From here (i.e., Mathura) to the south all [the country] is Middle India (Madhyadesa). Its people are rich. The inhabitants of Madhyadesa dress and eat like people in China”.
(This statement in the context of Chinese discourse on foreign societies, where eating
habits and manner of clothing were usually associated with the sophistication of a non-Chinese culture, indicates the unique status of the Indians in the Chinese world order. This perception of India as a civilized society persisted until the tenth century, kindled through the reports of later Chinese pilgrims and the works of Chinese clergy that highlighted the erudition of Indian people and the complexity of their society and cultural traditions)

Xuanzang begins fascicle two with a discussion of the names for India
appearing in various Chinese records. He concludes by stating that the correct
Chinese term for India should be Yindu, a name that is still in use in China. Next,
the Chinese monk explains the geography and climate, the measurement system,
and the concept of time in India. Xuanzang then provides a glimpse of urban life
and architecture and narrates in detail the existing caste system, the educational
requirements for the Brahmins, the teaching of Buddhist doctrines, legal and economic practices, social and cultural norms, and the eating habits of the natives,
and lists the natural and manufactured products of India.

So , my dear friend, this is not a “never never land” and nothing is imagined nor left to your imagination. I am sure you would appreciate that what is given above are all historical facts with proof. There is absolutely no invented greatness of the Hindu Society that was Bharat.

May be, if you go back in time to neolithic, paleolithic etc ages and further right up to the time of srushti, we have to admit that we have no recorded acceptable proof about the greatness of the Hindu Society. Hindus of course do not accept that Vedas were written by any one. So they stand no chance of being accepted as authentic records of the time even if we are able to carbon date an oldest copper plate manuscript of the veda. But then do we need to go that far back in time?

Long winding posts require long winding replies at least to show that there is realism in this discussion.

 

[prasad1]

Mr. Raju sir,
You are unnecessarily arguing, with shifting focus.
I have great faith and appreciation for the Hindu culture.
My argument is only with the term "Bharat" as a Hindu nation.
My point was that there NEVER was a united Bharat Hindu nation.
In the gupta period there were people of following other religions (Buddism).
Secondly the opinion expressed was that Hindus on their own will have a prosperous and equitable nation, but for the people of other religion contaminating it.
You are going round and round claiming the superiority of Hinduism. Can you categorically state the borders of the "bharat" and its leaders. Can you categorically specify its GDP and compare it to other nations at that time.
Even

Other than mythology, do you have any proof?

For Your information:
After the Guptan empire fell apart in the 500s AD, India had a lot of smaller kings ruling a lot of small kingdoms. There were a lot of wars among these small kingdoms, but there was also a lot of great architecture and art during this time. In northern India, King Harsha ruled one of the small kingdoms, but after he died in the 600s AD, his kingdom fell apart into three even smaller ones. During this time, southern India had bigger, more powerful kingdoms than northern India did. The most important southern kingdom was the Chola, which got rich partly by selling pepper and cinnamon and other spices at their seaports to Arab traders who resold the spices in the Islamic Empire and to medieval Europe.

There ware Hindu Kings, Hindu Society. Hindu Culture, but never a Bharat Nation.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Mr. Prasad,

Your post #19 for reference:

You had said this in your earlier post #15:

If you meant to say Hindus were prosperous, rich and equitable (fair to all parties as dictated by reason and conscience) society. It is preposterous and a lie.

After reading the extracts from Fa Hien and Xuan Zang given by me in my post #18 would you still say this?

You have also said:

“Secondly the opinion expressed was that Hindus on their own will have a prosperous and equitable nation, but for the people of other religion contaminating it.”

Who said this? Post # please.

You have asked:

“You are going round and round claiming the superiority of Hinduism. Can you categorically state the borders of the "bharat" and its leaders. Can you categorically specify its GDP and compare it to other nations at that time.”

The origin of all this lies in the taunt “hindu rate of growth” meaning Hindus were inferior to all the others in the world slogging at a snails pace in their economic activities, living a miserable life since time immemorial. In that context and at that point, you came in and stated there was no recognizable Hindu country and so where is the question of their prosperity. You even asserted “ to say that Hindus were prosperous, rich and equitable is a preposterous lie”. My replies are just counter points to your view on this subject.

You are asking me to Categorically state the borders of bharat and also categorically specify its GDP. I have categorically stated this: “Bharat Varsh, the subcontinent, had many independent kingdoms and principalities which were populated predominently by Hindus”. And you have “generally agreed” with me. The concept of GDP would be just meaningless blah blah to an age and a society which was steeped in barter system. For it to make any meaningful impact we will have to first prove that in the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] century AD itself the economy was monetised. Can we do that? Prosperity is not measured by GDP alone. There are other parameters. When we speak about a society (hindu society) in the 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Century AD prosperity is evidenced by what indepenent and neutral foreign visitors of that time recorded about that society. I am not going round and round. And I am not claiming any superiority. I am saying just that the Hindu society was not in tatters begging and decaying or barbaric and brutal. It was certainly rich, cultured and prosperous. If you want to counter this please provide proof. A long winding lecture about world civilizations and paleolythic ages etc will not be proof.

Other than mythology, do you have any proof?

This is a gem coming from you.I never knew Fa Hien, Xuan Zang and Yijing are all mythological characters. Thanks for that enlightening piece of information. And by the way, can you please enlighten a little more about the female mythological characters also? Like Mrs. Fa Hien, Mrs. Xuan Zang and Mrs. Yijing? That will make this discussion a little more interesting.

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

Please read post#6.
Faxian (traditional Chinese: 法顯; simplified Chinese: 法显; pinyin: Fǎxiǎn; also romanized as Fa-Hien, Fa-hsien, Fa Xian, et al.) (337 – c. 424 CE) was a Chinese Buddhist monk who travelled by foot all the way from China to India, visiting many sacred Buddhist sites in what are now Xinjiang, China, Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka and between 399 and 412 to acquire Buddhist scriptures. His journey is described in his important travelogue, A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms, Being an Account by the Chinese Monk Fa-Xian of his Travels in India and Ceylon in Search of the Buddhist Books of Discipline.

Please read Bhudhist and not Bharat.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Prasad,

Please read post#6

I followed your advice and read the post #6. I did not get any wiser. Perhaps you are able to read a lot more than me into that post.

Faxian ([COLOR=#DA7911 !important]traditional Chinese[/COLOR]: 法顯; [COLOR=#DA7911 !important]simplified Chinese[/COLOR]: 法显; pinyin: Fǎxiǎn; also romanized as Fa-Hien, Fa-hsien, Fa Xian, et al.) (337 – c. 424 CE) was a Chinese [COLOR=#DA7911 !important]Buddhist monk[/COLOR] who travelled by foot all the way from China to India, visiting many sacred Buddhist sites in what are now Xinjiang, China, Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka and between 399 and 412 to acquire Buddhist scriptures. His journey is described in his important travelogue, A Record of Buddhist Kingdoms, Being [COLOR=#DA7911 !important]an Account[/COLOR] by the Chinese Monk Fa-Xian of his Travels in India and Ceylon in Search of the Buddhist [COLOR=#DA7911 !important]Books of[/COLOR] Discipline.

Reading this post I got only one additional input to what all has been discussed in this thread so far. That is that you perhaps are good at traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese. If you think you have added any more info by this post please let me know. I am glad that you are not considering Fa Hien a mythological character any more.

Please read Bhudhist and not Bharat.

Wherever the adjective Budhdhist is relevant I read it as Budhdhist if it is given that way. Wherever the land mass that is Bharat is referred to I read it as Bharat even if it is not referred to by that name.

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

ANOTHER NAME OF COUNTRY "INDIA".
PREAMBLE OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SAYS INDIA "THE BHARAT".

India, officially the Republic of India , is a country in South Asia. It is the seventh-largest country by geographical area, the second-most populous country with over 1.18 billion people, and the most populous democracy in the world.


Home to the ancient Indus Valley Civilisation and a region of historic trade routes and vast empires, the Indian subcontinent was identified with its commercial and cultural wealth for much of its long history.

When you say you can define your own version of the word Bharat, obviously we are going to differ.
Please be careful when you are going to defend "Hindutva" as defined by BJP, it is a very narrow and convenient definition. It excludes a great many contributor to Bharat.

 

[sarang]

The government refused to remove the word 'sind' from the national anthem, even though sind is not part of india. Anyway we say 'bharata varshe' in daily sankalpam. it always denoted a large area where sanatana dharma was actively followed and never referred to any country/ nation borders which are always fluid.