Indianexpress.com : comments : Modern India’s modern myths

Modern India’s modern myths

It is my belief that the first column of a New Year should try to be cheerful no matter how bad the times. So, despite the attempt to bump off our new Home Minister in Guwahati on New Year’s Day I am not going to say more than one sentence about terrorism this week. Here is that sentence. May t ....Read more

Comments

Post comment

38 Comments |

Bharat v/s IndiaBy: Shashank Vagal | Tuesday , 3 Feb '09 21:02:56 PM Reply | Forward Thanx for info. But, it was MahaPanditChanakya who first fostered the idea of building one big nation (not the British per se) unifying the so called Ganas at that time. I am not sure what name it had. Bharatvarsh is old popular name for our country in Puranas and other such scriptures. And Chandragupt did work it out that way to a very great extent. It was Samrat Ashok, the great who got confused with gains (or losses as he saw it) of victory after the Kalinga war. I am in full agreement with you on those pseudo-Pandits of the new times when they air about any possible thing under the sky related to our country. As regards the introduction of English as educational medium language with support from Raja Ram Mohan Roy et al; I wish to share with you observations of Veer Savarkar: If we had chosen Sanskrit (another given option, too) instead of English, India would be a one gr8 united country-all other languages would merge in it easily. see what advantages we would have thereby?

Most appropriate articleBy: Sunil Sahadev | Tuesday , 3 Feb '09 3:18:28 AM Reply | Forward Dear tavleen,this is one of the best peices I have ever read. Something which I wanted to shout at our 'self-loathing leftist intelligentia. Apart from the Bharat India, that you mentioned which was once ruled by emporers like Samudragupta, ashoka, and Chandragupta Manurya, Whose adminstrative boundaries were almost as big as the present India (look at the spread of Asoka stupas in India), Even Mughal India was a single big country that was even bigger than the present India. Though Aurangazedb was a crueal dictator, you should consider the fact that his India comprised of the present india, Pakisthan , Afghanisthan and Bangladesh put together. THe southern most tip of his India extendet to the present day Madurai and the Northern most tip to kashmir. All these states were ruled by Governers appointed by the ruler. I am open to be challenged by any Historian and Aurangazeb ruled INdia for about 50 odd years. SO much for the articifial nation theory

Modern Indian mythBy: Pradeep | Sunday , 11 Jan '09 17:20:58 PM Reply | Forward You are right madam. The vast left wing establishment seeks India's destruction. Barkha Dutt, Rajdeep Sardesai and Arundhati Roy have managed to inflict more damage than LeT

Wage a War on Intellectual terrorismBy: ram shankar | Sunday , 11 Jan '09 8:48:48 AM Reply | Forward Kudos to you ,Tavleen Singh.You and Swami Ram Dev should wage a war against theseso called intellectuals and torch bearers of Secularism and create one confident and assured India

Ms. Singh is rightBy: Sam | Friday , 9 Jan '09 13:25:46 PM Reply | Forward India is an unfortunate nation which is represented by people who are anti-nationals. Nowhere else in the world do it see the majority community undergoing so much abuse. The majoirity community in India is hopelessly divided along caste and linguistic lines and India is weak as a nation primarily becuse of this reason.We are led by 'anti-national secularists' at all levels and for them anything hindu is communal.ONLY SOLUTION FOR US IS TO UNITE AS A COMMUNITY BUT CAN WE? I HOPE SO.

Modern India's modern mythsBy: B.D.UKHUL | Thursday , 8 Jan '09 10:27:31 AM Reply | Forward Ms. Tavleen Singh has summed up her views in an excellent manner which the people without roots i.e. who donot respect and revere their glorious roots and only get entangled with the social failings due to the circumstances fail to see their original worth of their past. She has espoused the rightful cause of the natives of this country called BHARAT or Aryavarta and has a dig at the people who refuse to accept Rama and Krishna. India can survive and has only survived due to the values which it inherited from its glorious past and its origin is in VEDAS which were revealed by the God Almighty and not by the founders of various sects who were men in flesh and blood.

vedas as adam and eveBy: poovannan | Thursday , 8 Jan '09 14:09:38 PM Reply | Forward dear friend nice to know my origin sorry roots.was it the root of people living only in your bharat or the whole universe.in amereica they want to teach intelligent design along with origin of species.we should add vedic roots.kindly go and see the tribes in andaman/nagaland/sikkim and if they have any knowledge of vedas or the avatars of bharat gods i agree with u totally.there r crores who have not crossed 100 km from their place of birth and tavleen is quoting about people visting kumbhmela.i have travelled all around the country and my family members are a bit educated and in jobs courtesy reservation but i am yet to see someone who has seen kumbhmela.my point is there is no harm in brahmins and rajputs claiming there was aglorious past(yes there was a glorious past for them) but forcing it on others is saddening.in 21st century mishras should write mayawathi purana and not valmiki writing kshatriya purana

Some good points, but need more detailsBy: Vijay | Wednesday , 7 Jan '09 19:08:17 PM Reply | Forward A nation need not have a perfectly homogenous culture in order to exist or be considered a united society. Despite a multitude of religions, regional peculiarities and languages, the idea of India exists in the minds of most Indians as one cohesive unit. That said, clearly we have problems with other countries as to border disputes. We rely on history to make our case. We may need to do some hard negotiating to keep our borders safe and clearly defined which may mean a nuanced view of how the ancient Bharat relates to modern day India. The fact that Kailash now is in China should not take away from our appreciation of ancient traditions relating to it, nor should we demand Kailash back from China on that count. While Tavleen makes good points about liberals claiming that India is an unnatural nation, we must remember that any nation can exist only if it learns to marry the tensions from an uneven populace with non-negotiable and egalitarian principles of governance.

terrorism was not there before babri masjidBy: ramdas | Tuesday , 6 Jan '09 19:31:29 PM Reply | Forward i cannot see any point by the author to buttress the argument of her enemies the left liberals.whre was afghanistan/burma/srilanka maldives pakistan/bangladesh/indonesia/malaysia etc.the largest hindu temple is in cambodia where there r no hindus.the congress will be replaced by nda and it will be by mayawathi and the same happens with religions.fortunately with universal education there r no new religions even though osho is hundred times better intellectually than all earlier dev thoodas.so many religions have died and many more will.the europe is becoming agnostic and atheistic and on development we will follow

read ambedkarBy: ramdas | Tuesday , 6 Jan '09 19:10:24 PM Reply | Forward in south if u dont marry ur uncles daughter the family will be boycotted in the village while north of vindhyas they will kill if u marry in the same gothra.the food habits r entirely different where a haryanvi feels he will become weak if he takes more rice while in south they take only rice.the liberals , hindu haters like karunanindhi,followers of ambedkar who have embraced buddhism by remaining true to his words that he was born a hindu but will never die as ahindu all have equal rights like u in this country and its a comedy for u to suggest that they have an extended holiday in pak.hinduism has done wonders far brahmins and rajputs and some vaishyas but for sudras and panchamas it treated them like ......being a opponent of reservation one can understand tavleen singh for her upper caste prejudice.most of the muslims and christians in this country r converts from lower castes .all except pandits got converted in kashmir.what does it mean.a pandit loses all his privileges but for

new year jokeBy: ramdas | Tuesday , 6 Jan '09 19:01:29 PM Reply | Forward the frustration of a failed marriage with a muslim had made the author the torchbearer of hindutva.there was apast before hindu past too dear madam.the tribal gods were replaced by aryan practises and it still makes the lower castes confused.before occasions like marriage/earpiercing ceremony etc we offer liquor and meat to the gods .show me one hindu temple were its been done .all these practises were discontinued after brahmins captured the temples.buddhism was more popular and before adisankara established brahminised hinduism most in the country were buddhists. show me the no of lower castes who have visited the temples in the north and viceversa.it will not be more than handful.kindly read ambedkars riddles of hinduism and u will understand the damage done to the majority by hinduism.i am not a torchbearer for any religion but criticize hinduism more as i have been affected by it since birth.a tamilian abroad is comfortable with asrilankan/canadian tamil than a

Hold on Mr.RamdasBy: Harish | Wednesday , 7 Jan '09 2:48:08 AM Reply | Forward First bringing Tavleen Singh's personal issues while debating a point is hitting below the belt..Anyway if one were to excuse you for your crasness, you make a lot of senseless points..What is Hindutva?? Anybody who is proud of his Hindu roots is a Hindutva torchbearer is it?Somebody who says the facts that inspite of your caste we all have the same roots is a Hindutvadi??I am really happy to see you get your history lessons from one book from Ambedkar.. How about reading people like Koenrad Elst , Michal Danino and others to understand India and Hinduism's true history.Yes Hinduism has changed, evolved, morphed over ages and thats what Ambedkar's books says(I have read his book)You say "Brahmins captured" the temples .. Brahmins did not capture any temple..They had a very different duty to perform in those days.. It was Kshtriyas who captured territories..You are one of a kind feeding on ignorance and half baked idea of India's history.If tamilian abroad is comfortable with a srilankan or canadian temple blame that on his fluency and comfort in Tamil and not other languages. Not to foget because he has been fed with all the Dravidian hotch potch of history where he is taught look down upon his own history (just look in the mirror to find an example of that kind of a person)..Its not in anyway related to your Hindu roots

below the beltBy: ramdas | Wednesday , 7 Jan '09 21:07:23 PM Reply | Forward dear friend when i talk to a northindian hindutvavadi he blames my absence of partition wounds for my sympathy for muslims(i strongly favour reservations for all groups whether muslims/dalits/poor among forward)advani was born in lahore and knows the pains of partition(but amartya sen who belongs to bengal which suffered the worst in hindu muslim riots has great sympathy for bengalis as a whole and has given his noble prize money to be sent equally between westbengal and bangladesh).i cant understand what i hit below when the fact behind any hatred is some suffering (real or imagined)in real life.a naxal or jihadi terrorist or abinav bharat terrorist or tamil terrorist does things inhuman because of hatred either due to reading articles like this which create aimaginary glory and gory past or personal sufferings.gandhi was killed by a brahmin(the first terrorist action in modern india) because he was in the way of capturing the old glory by being sympathetic to muslims.

Next1 2 3 4