The Idea of India

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 03 Nov 2010 20:34

Varoon Shekhar wrote:
This is probably true, but then if an Indian responds in this manner, questions will be asked like "What happened to the peaceful, gentle, polite Indian? To Gandhi?" There are Indians themselves, among them the likes of Praful Bidwai, who will lament this tough guy Indian stance, which is at variance with the Nehru-Gandhi values of moral over physical strength. And wonder why India and Indians are trying to emulate the Chinese, Islamist and American tough guy, don't mess wid us approach. On that issue, let's accept that in all situations, it may not be advisable, desirable or principled to adopt such a stance.

Varoon this is a very civilized, very intellectual and yes, a very Indic viewpoint. But this is not the stuff of power. It is the stuff of gyana. We need to learn to differentiate.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 03 Nov 2010 20:39

Shiv saar. A question (long time since I asked you a question). One of your earlier posts talk about how India in the past was unique, I like to quote your following words:

One is the ancient idea of India that was a land east of the Indus and south of the himalayas with no fixed border and free migration for wealth, refuge or profit. It had no fixed ideology and no fixed "protected" language. It had no fixed emperor or political system. It had no fixed and protected religion. Unlike other nations defined on ethnicity, language or religion, India was a land that did not restrict anyone on those lines. This is a concept that most people in the world cannot understand. Only the US comes close - but even the US trips and falls over language.

The second is India the nation state which happens to be east of the Indus and south of the Himalayas. But this India has fixed borders. It has no ideology to protect. It had no ideology in the past. It has no single language to protect. No single language was ever protected in the past.

All that India the nation state does is to try and maintain the "status quo" of a free thinking, liberal India not bound by ethnicity and language or religion in a world that has structured itself around nation states in which every nation clams uniqueness based on ethnicity, color, language or religion. They look at India and ask "What is unique about you?" And India's are not able to say that anything is unique in India because not being unique in terms of ethnicity, color, language or religion is what India is all about.

Then in another post you talk about patriotism. {BTW, I get misty eyed listening to Vande Matram too}. Isn't there a dichotomy between the concepts of "patriotism" and the "idea of India" ? I agree the concept of nation-state is rather new. We have come to accept that and live by it (hence the term patriotism).

Gyaan always appreciated.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 03 Nov 2010 20:59

I actually agree with the Herr Doktor, not that I dont often anyway, but this time, resoundingly so. It is one thing to have a "teach the newbies the old Indian history by the established buffs" type of discussion and quite another to let it morph into *debating* the idea of India.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 03 Nov 2010 21:55

Guys,

The Nation exists. In my modest travels in this land I have traveled North to south. East to west is some thing I have yet to do. The diffrences are many. But under the diffrences if you scratch the surface. The commonalities are too many to be ignored.

What is a nation? What is a civilisation?

I cannot answer. But what I can say is that we are a unique people who exist in a particular region of the planet. As such we are a fact of life. As I understand, a fact of life is accepted. Even if it may not be understood. Debating it will not change it. Regardless of how you may try to spin the argument.

So what i ultimately wish to say is that India exists. It has existed in diffrent forms. It will continue to exist in the future as well.

All this debate and discussion regarding the Idea of India reminds me the story of the Blind Men and the Eliphant(If we are going to have parables on this thread).

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 04 Nov 2010 00:07

shiv wrote:
Below is a map of the British empire. So is that all Britain then? If it is not, then the extent of the Mauryan empire or whatever can never represent India. Just a pimple in history

British empire had multiple races and religions. It was an economic empire and not a nation. That is the real fact.
Economic empire is a modern thing and was not possible earlier in history

Theo_Fidel · Post by **Theo_Fidel** » 04 Nov 2010 00:11

One thing the British taught us is that we live together or die separately. Instinctively all Indians understand this. Many communities have given up a lot to be Indian to avoid this fate. No matter how poor we were we were stronger together despite all the conflicts.

Another reason we are instinctively repulsed by the splitist TSP. It weakens both of us.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 04 Nov 2010 00:55

First time I read the title, I thought this thread was meant for

exploring the Idea of India with which India would again bring a new philosophy to the world, spread its soft-power again.

be it
- tolerance
- plurality
- democracy
- tradition
- international cooperation and peace
- inclusive development, upliftment of the poor
- dharma
- ...

Seems it is about something else!

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 04 Nov 2010 01:10

Lets clarify some terminology (as this thread is hot on opinion and low on value

)

The following should be obvious, but many time it is not:

1. Nation is not a country. County is the same as a State.

2. If an when the social concept of a nation coincides with the political concept of a state we end up with a nation-state

3. If the idea of India as a nation is being discussed, then we can indulge in the social concept of
what it means to be India.

4. If the idea of India as a state is being discussed, then we can indulge those that hold that
one cannot question the political concept already in existence, etc.

5. If the idea of India as a nation-sate is being discussed, then there is utter confusion, as seen
on this thread, where some are talking politically and other are talking socially.

6. What would be beneficial, suspect that to be the real purpose of this thread, is to talk about
India becoming, of maturing and finding a purpose for herself as she becomes a self-confident
nation-state. Perhaps every nation-state goes through this early period of birth, self-awareness,
and progresses into a confident, purposeful state that can speak clearly for the values it espouses
and would like to mold the world on. What is that idea for India?

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 04 Nov 2010 01:11

Very interesting writeup by Tagore on Bharatavarsha:

The History of Bharatavarsha

Not only in social organization, but also in the area of faith and belief we notice the same trend of the building of unity and harmony. The effort to establish harmony between knowledge, action and devotion that we see in the Gita is a trait that belongs especially to Bharatavarsha. It is impossible to translate into Indian language the expression called “religion” that exists in Europe, for within the domain of faith Bharatavarsha has resisted the dividing of the mind. Our intellect, our belief, our conduct, all that we hold dear in this world and in the next, all of these together constitute our Dharma. Bharatavarsha has not divided the faith into the pigeonholes of “everyday use” and “formal occasions”. For example, the life-force that courses through various limbs of the body like hands, feet, head, stomach, etc., is really the same entity and is not divisible as the life in hand, the life in feet, and so on. Similarly, Bharatavarsha did not slice the Dharma into various pieces like the Dharma of belief, the Dharma of conduct, the Dharma of Sunday, the Dharma of other six days, the Dharma of the Church, the Dharma of the home, etc. The Dharma of Bharatavarsha is the Dharma of the entire society. It has its roots struck into the earth while its head soars into the sky. Bharatavarsha has not looked upon the roots and the top as disjoined parts. Bharatavarsha has looked upon Dharma as one magnificent tree stretching from the earth to the heavens and covering the entire life of man.
Amongst the civilizations of the world Bharatavarsha stands as an ideal of the endeavour to unify the diverse. Her history will bear this out. Amidst many travails and obstacles, fortunes and misfortunes Bharatavarsha has been seeking to experience the One in the universe as well as in one’s own soul and to place that One in the variegated, to discover that One through knowledge, to establish that One through action, to internalize that One through love, to exemplify that One through one’s own life. When through the study of her history we would be able to realize this everlasting spirit of Bharata, then the rupture of our present with the past will disappear.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 04 Nov 2010 01:57

Pulikeshi wrote: India becoming, of maturing and finding a purpose for herself as she becomes a self-confident
nation-state. Perhaps every nation-state goes through this early period of birth, self-awareness,
and progresses into a confident, purposeful state that can speak clearly for the values it espouses
and would like to mold the world on. What is that idea for India?

I think the question asked by non-indians is this.

Was India, the great civilisation, nation..etc...ever a nation-state. Ie. Political entity. If not. Why not. And are those factors still there.

This would lead on to questions such as, if there were never an Indian Nation-State, could the current nation-state be sustained. Or would it revert back to the Indian Nation/civilisation, with many nation-state/princedoms/kingdoms.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 04 Nov 2010 02:02

TM, how old is the concept of nation-statein the world?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 04 Nov 2010 02:05

Friends from the Indian side - once again, and Shiv ji in particular - I agree with Shivji that opening such discussions will give opportunity for Chinese or Paki supporters of their respective country's land-grab and looting ambitions to try and delegitimize the foundations of India as a modern state. This is why I said that this use of "supposed historical doubt" to challenge "modern" or current "existence" should be recognized as such and firmly rejected.

On the other hand allowing such comments should also be fixed in the context that the same argument immediately throws out any justification for existence of Pak or China. As some posters are fond of dropping often - there was something called a "middle kingdom" there never was a "People's republic of China" so - we can always go back to discussing whether that region will go back to being a warring pack of states confined to lower reaches of certain rivers. Pakistan never existed - in any form - before 1947, so it has even less justification for existing!

saip · Post by **saip** » 04 Nov 2010 02:07

TM, who propounded the theory of Nation-States originally?

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 04 Nov 2010 02:37

Wow, a thread because ARoy barfed and blew chunks at her own feet

I mean why is she allowed to hoist her perpetual mid-life crisis and the more recent osteoporosis pains on a billion? I mean, cant she be successfully exported to countries that really need a conscience? eg: those lining both sides of Northern Atlantic Ocean? Why cant she be in the committee handing out Nobel Peace Prize? We seriously need to market her abroad and stop worrying about her.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 04 Nov 2010 02:46

Already demonstrated on this thread, both in terms of an idea, in terms of stable empires in the past, if you have bothered to read this thread. Sometimes TM i think you are also one who has a short attention span like our bigotted and racist friend in the Paki thread. India has been an idea and concept much more than PRC. ever will be and more so today. There is no nation on Earth except Island countries that have as clear cut a Nation state legacy as India has. Certainly not China then.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 04 Nov 2010 02:58

It is time to lock this thread.If somebody has any questions about historical beginings os India he can post his query in the history thread.The idea of India cannot be elaborated on a forum.Each one of us has to find it ourselves.

Yes a nation can have some values like democracy , individual freedom,Rights for the citizens etc.But that is a different topic altogether.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 04 Nov 2010 04:50

TonyMontana wrote: Was India, the great civilisation, nation..etc...ever a nation-state.

YES, it was and is and will be! End of discussion

Same as Sanathana Dharma (Eternal Dharma)

उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

"The country (varṣam) that lies north (uttaram) of the ocean (samudrasya)
and south (dakshinam) of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam;
there dwell the descendants of Bharata. (Bharathi)"

Hence today you have Bharat Rakshak!

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 04 Nov 2010 04:54

India is a civilizational state.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 04 Nov 2010 04:57

Pulikeshi ji, China is named after Cina. A Sanskrit word. Wiki:

First appeared before C.E.
[edit] Chin

From Sanskrit Cin (चीन IPA: /c͡çiːnə/). The traditional etymology, proposed in the 17th century by Martin Martini, and supported by many later scholars (e.g., Paul Pelliot) is that the word is derived from the "Qin state" or the "Qin Dynasty" (秦), which ruled China in 221 – 206 BC.[7] The word was used both in Laws of Manu (2nd century BC) and in the Mahabhārata (5th century BC), this is still the most widely accepted theory.

So we do know where our and others' civilizational boundaries lie..for a few millenia at the minimum.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 04 Nov 2010 05:13

TonyMontana wrote: This would lead on to questions such as, if there were never an Indian Nation-State, could the current nation-state be sustained. Or would it revert back to the Indian Nation/civilisation, with many nation-state/princedoms/kingdoms.

Ramana has partly answered your question, if you understand the answer to his question. However, let me try another one. The form of the state(s) of this nation has evolved and will evolve. The current form of the state, largely suits the demands of the world we live in best. However, we may wish that there was a strong political state formed a 1000 years back so that the civilization was not wounded the way it has, it is a fact that Indians will have to accept and move on, with the hope that we do not allow more wounds on this nation. The current state serves this function.

Here is the key point to understand. The lack of such a unified state in the past and/or the wounds on the civilization have a bearing on the nation to the degree that, such a state was unable to protect the civilization and no more.

Thankfully, these wounds were partial and a substantial nation still exists, which continues to promote the ethos of Sanatan Dharma, underpinned by a common root language by way of Sanskrit. As long as a substantial piece of the population, that practices Sanatan Dharma, continues to occupy a significant land mass, the nation and the civilization has a basis to exist, as it always has.

The current state would make India a Nation-State.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Nov 2010 06:32

brihaspati wrote: On the other hand allowing such comments should also be fixed in the context that the same argument immediately throws out any justification for existence of Pak or China. As some posters are fond of dropping often - there was something called a "middle kingdom" there never was a "People's republic of China" so - we can always go back to discussing whether that region will go back to being a warring pack of states confined to lower reaches of certain rivers. Pakistan never existed - in any form - before 1947, so it has even less justification for existing!

Precisely brihaspati. Precisely! In this case the allegation/question that has come in fits in perfectly with the idea of a little analogy I had made years ago - which I will post again on BR because it seems so apt.

Asking if India was ever a nation is the start of a "You farted" game. The You farted game is as follows:

The "game" or trick is to get a person on the defensive with an unprovoked accusation. The agenda and tone is set by the accuser and the passive personality goes on the defensive right from the start.

A group of people are sitting together - say 6 or 7 friends in a dorm. Suddenly the foul smell of a fart wafts up.

An accuser personality (call him 'A') picks out a passive personality ('P') and says "Hey P, you farted"

P protests "No I did not"

A: "Yes you did"

P: "Shut up and stop accusing me"

A:"Heh Heh. It's OK. No need to cover your guilt by getting angry. I know you farted. We don't mind - just warn us next time.

What happens in this exchange is that the Accuser 'A' has the initiative all the time. He sets the pace, and he sets the agenda. He may actually have farted himself, but he gets away giving the impression that "P" is guilty.

The "You farted" game is played time and time again in real life. Often, an erring party comes up with some accusation. Whether this accusation is true or not is immaterial because it puts others on the defensive and the accuser puts the onus of proving that his accusation is false on the other party.

In this case the act of asking if India was something or not in the past sets the agenda (Starts a thread!!) which puts a lot of people on the defensive and everyone suddenly needs to think "Hey - maybe there is a problem here. Maybe I need to ask others and find out "good answers" so that I can answer this question"

Mind you I don't think the person who started this thread intended it in this way - but he was only echoing and repeating the accusation about India that has been around for decades.

But tell me what's a "good answer" to a disingenuous concocted accusation? We BRFites are the suckers in this case - the passive personality "P" who get accused of farting. The USA, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Australia and Canada for example have no serious history. All cooked up nations, but Indians never seem to go on the offensive on that note - but collapse into defensive huddle thwack their heads in puzzlement and insist that this is the right reaction.

There is a lot more that can be said about how and why this state of affairs came about, but this thread in my view needs to go back to the hijab forum. Or locked and thrown away in favor of a thread that gets the issues right from the word go.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Nov 2010 06:48

TonyMontana wrote: This would lead on to questions such as, if there were never an Indian Nation-State, could the current nation-state be sustained. Or would it revert back to the Indian Nation/civilisation, with many nation-state/princedoms/kingdoms.

Whether India was a nation state or not, there is one thing that has been true for the people living in India for about 5000 years. A person sitting in the tip of the Southern peninsula, (or in the Eastern or Western tip of India) gets an urge to visit places that he considers sacred and he gets up and travels through all the states and kingdoms along the way without a passport or a visa, getting food and shelter along the way, along well trodden roads purpose built for those journeys by ancient civilizations and successfully completes a tour of all his holy places - starting from Badrinath and Kedarnath in the Himalayas, to Benaras on the banks of the river Ganga and any one of a thousand other holy places. A Buddhist in Arunachal Pradesh or Kashmir can suddenly decide to visit the Buddha's birthplace. He needs no visa. No travel papers. No permission. No quota.

No Indian kingdom, no Indian state. no ruler, Indian or non Indian has ever stopped this in the past and no one ever will. That is India. However there remain a few Hindu and Sikh holy places that are currently under control of China and Pakistan. But that is a different issue. The vast majority of places that are mentioned in India's 5000 year old epics still remain within the modern nation state of India. That is India's problem. Indians are far too much in love with what they have and don't yearn to kick and and murder someone else to grab what he has. That is what needs to be set right. Maybe that is what the modern Indian nation state will do.

TonyMontana · Post by **TonyMontana** » 04 Nov 2010 06:55

shiv wrote: That is India's problem. Indians are far too much in love with what they have and don't yearn to kick and and murder someone else to grab what he has. That is what needs to be set right. Maybe that is what the modern Indian nation state will do.

It's not too much in love with what they had. I think it's what they had was more then enough. Competition for limited resources. If Indians had everything they needed/wanted, what's the urge to go out and look for stuff?

So here begs the question. Does the Modern Indian Nation-State feels like what they have is enough? Or not. You know the answer to this question in terms of America and China.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Nov 2010 07:00

TonyMontana wrote:
So here begs the question. Does the Modern Indian Nation-State feels like what they have is enough? Or not. You know the answer to this question in terms of America and China.

Not on this thread - unless the thread gets moved back to the lingerie forum.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 04 Nov 2010 07:09

TonyMontana wrote:
I think the question asked by non-indians is this.
Was India, the great civilisation, nation..etc...ever a nation-state. Ie. Political entity. If not. Why not. And are those factors still there.

People who are ignorant of the formation of nation states ask such stupid questions.

Let me ask you a question in turn. Was China EVER a nation state before 1949 ?

In ancient times, there were no nation states. There were civilizations - Indian civilization, Chinese Civilization etc.

Then came Kingdoms and Empires which were named by the dynasties which rules them - Mauryan Empire, Han Empire, Mughal Empire, Qing Empire etc.

Then came Colonisation. India was completely colonised.China was partially colonised.

Then came Nation states. Rupublic of India was established in 1947. "People's" republic of China was established in 1949.

This chronology is not only true for India and China but most non-european countries in the world.

But why do people ask this "nation state" question only with respect to India as if other countries are all nation states since ancient times ?

disha · Post by **disha** » 04 Nov 2010 07:15

shiv wrote:But tell me what's a "good answer" to a disingenuous concocted accusation? We BRFites are the suckers in this case

We are *suckers* pure and simple.

Some weirdo farts and we are jumping around like a bunch of monkeys trying to "defend" and come up with a "logical" conclusion and "learn" in the process. Why are we explaining and to whom we are explaining? And what is the purpose of the explanation? Who is the judge and who is the jury? Are we so under confident that we have to justify every time and reassure ourselves again and again? Ridiculous.

Another IB4TL from my side.

disha · Post by **disha** » 04 Nov 2010 07:17

Rony wrote: Then came Colonisation. India was completely colonised.China was partially colonised.

Sorry to disagree. Yes there were vassals to the Brishit empire, but not completely "colonised".

Another IB4TL!

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 Nov 2010 07:18

Bharat has been a single Vedic nation for eons. India followed federal structure since time immemorial. Earlier Aswametha yajnas and later Rajasuya yagas are recoronations of Indian monarchs.

I posted a relavant article on Mahabharat a while ago in Indian interests thread; which explained the logic behind Dharmarajas Rajasuya yaga.

The historical system is akin to current languaged based states and federalist nation structure.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Nov 2010 07:25

RamaY wrote:Bharat has been a single Vedic nation for eons. India followed federal structure since time immemorial. Earlier Aswametha yajnas and later Rajasuya yagas are recoronations of Indian monarchs.

I posted a relavant article on Mahabharat a while ago in Indian interests thread; which explained the logic behind Dharmarajas Rajasuya yaga.

The historical system is akin to current languaged based states and federalist nation structure.

So what is the requirement for this thread?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Nov 2010 07:29

Rony wrote: But why do people ask this "nation state" question only with respect to India as if other countries are all nation states since ancient times ?

Because Indians are the suckers who start having self doubt when this question is asked rather than saying "Shag off. What's it to you?"

There are more serious reasons why Indians are more prone to this "Maybe I'm not good enough" syndrome. But not here.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 Nov 2010 07:38

Shivji,

didn't get your point.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Nov 2010 07:50

RamaY wrote:Shivji,
didn't get your point.

It has been stated that this thread is required by those Indians who doubt India's nationhood to consolidate all the arguments they need to prove to themselves that India is a nation so that they can stand up and argue with Arundhati Roy and her ilk.

But such discussions, and informative posts related to that such as the one you have made in the Indian interests thread already exist on the forum. What is the need for a thread that does little more than make a public display of self doubt reactively provoked by a disingenuous question?

To repeat my point, if some stranger comes to you and asks you whether your wife has been faithful in the past and whether she will remain so in future, do you start a discussion with friends to answer that or tell him to sod off?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 04 Nov 2010 08:11

I see your point.

However I noticed that often our own kids see our silence (not countering a nonsensical claim with reason and proof) as our admission of guilt and make incorrect inferences.

I have no interest in explaining myself to outsiders. At the sametime I am mindful of my own kids.

I will shut my mouth with that.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 04 Nov 2010 08:43

Shiv,

This is time pass ground nut onlee!

I'm sure most of us have talked to many who have suggested that the British
unified India and no such entity existed, etc. There are also those who consider India
to be made up of kingdoms. This one is a lot more common.

It is hard to distill terms like 'gana rajya' 'gana tantra' the concept of republic, the concept
of multiple forms of government, all following same laws of Dharma, thus making the
need for a single Rajan redundant, etc. Indeed for most outsiders, they need to enter
the framework of Sanathana Dharma to even begin to understand all this...

So to say that all this is self evident is somewhat disingenuous. As, having been through
reasonably good schools in India, I was not exposed to this - whatever I've learned, it
had to come through my own effort and gyan from others before me who saw the truth!
Still wish this weren't the case!

I am not saying this should be discussed on this thread, but does seem like there is a
need to talk about this somewhere so that the knowledge, if missing, is indeed available.

As always my two paisa for free!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Nov 2010 08:57

Pulikeshi you don't have to search very far to find a summary of the idea of India. Just look at the words, (or a translation) of the words of our national anthem.

Vande Mataram expresses the same sentiment but is nonspecific with regard to geography. Tagore has specifically indicated the geography of the idea of India. India is tied up to the land. It's the land and its produce, the mother, the matrubhoomi of this region of earth that has been sacred for millennia and remains so.

I am surprised that so many people have not figured that out. I believe that "too much education" (engineering and medicine?) have clouded too many educated Indian minds when this is crystal clear to any Indian.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 04 Nov 2010 09:02

shiv wrote:
RamaY wrote:Bharat has been a single Vedic nation for eons. India followed federal structure since time immemorial. Earlier Aswametha yajnas and later Rajasuya yagas are recoronations of Indian monarchs.

I posted a relavant article on Mahabharat a while ago in Indian interests thread; which explained the logic behind Dharmarajas Rajasuya yaga.

The historical system is akin to current languaged based states and federalist nation structure.
So what is the requirement for this thread?

Because too many Indians have been brainwashed into denying the Indic-civilizational basis of India.

shiv wrote:I am surprised that so many people have not figured that out. I believe that "too much education" (engineering and medicine?) have clouded too many educated Indian minds when this is crystal clear to any Indian.

Sometimes too much education ... studying economics or sociology in JNU will certainly damage your brain.

Sometimes too little education ... studying engineering will not tell you precisely how the rabid sociologists are spouting garbage.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Nov 2010 09:11

Macaulayism is not sociology versus engineering. It is social engineering that makes sure that you look for foreign answers to questions about India within a framework that is alien to India. No use blaming JNU. IIT and REC are equally bad.

Land is the single most sacred thing for Indians. And the land of India is the embodiment of that sanctity. Whether you look 3000 years ago or what it is today, it is just the same. It has nothing to do with rulers, kings, individuals, regimes or political systems.

"Is mitthi se tilak karo
yeh dharti hai balidaan ki"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsGPxp4s1w

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 04 Nov 2010 09:53

Pranav wrote: Sometimes too much education ... studying economics or sociology in JNU will certainly damage your brain.

Sometimes too little education ... studying engineering will not tell you precisely how the rabid sociologists are spouting garbage.

I think this is correct for folks from some Indians unfortunately!

When a non-Indian approaches the subject of India - most times we chanced upon:

Britain - Legacy of English, Law and Nation-state -> that somehow this made India.
None of these are the real strengths of India. In each of these, a kernel of Indian
origin or invention already exists, from language to law to ideas on nation-states and
civilizations and what works best in each area.

Part of the problem is most Indian (similar to Hindus when asked about their religion)
feel uncomfortable explaining the idea of India. In part it is due to the fact that no
strong ideology has been brainwashed into them by the system. On the other hand, it
is also the ethos of the Indian culture that all arguments are left tentative.

This means when asked such questions, most Indians are either irritated or come close
to what resembles babbling. This does not mean they do not in their hearts know what
India is, but it is hard to describe what is personal especially when someone outside
the framework asks or brings into question what must be obvious.

Of course, Shiv says all this, much better than me with his blunt examples

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 04 Nov 2010 10:08

Shiv,

The answer to the game of you farted is simple so what, deal with it.

No point discussing it with any one else.

I guess that is what you are trying to say from word go.

JMT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 04 Nov 2010 11:00

shiv wrote: "Is mitthi se tilak karo
yeh dharti hai balidaan ki"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsGPxp4s1w

If you take modern (post 1947) India as being represented by Bollywood - the words I have quoted above actually links back from the time the movie was made to a several thousand year old legend. We are too busy learning calculus or physiology to figure it out.

Is mitthi se tilak karo means make a "tilak" (on your forehead) with this earth.
yeh dharti hai balidaan ki means this land is worthy of sacrifice.

The word for "sacrifice" in this case is balidaan which is a Sanskrit word that joins up "Bali" and "daan" (to donate or to give"

The name "Bali" is inextricably linked with Deepavali that starts the day after tomorrow.

The story of Bali weaves together stories of Shiva and one of Vishnu's avatars
http://tulu-research.blogspot.com/2007/ ... -bali.html

Asura King Bali
What was the great sin done by this Asura Bali?
He was a philanthropist to the core, who willingly gave away free gifts to the needy people!
If we brush aside all humanly impossible fantasies woven into the said legend, the remaining core story is that King Bali, was fond of giving away gifts desired by the recipient! The standing offers was that Bali would give whatever is asked of him! One clever, dwarf beggar (Vamana) came and begged him to grant land enough to place his three steps.(Or maybe, he asked that he should be given wherever he places his steps ).King Bali agreed to provide him whatever the dwarf desired and the mischievous Vamana placed his foot on Bali’s head! Thus, Bali had no other choice than offer himself to the wishes of the dwarf, who sent him to exile to a place called Patala.
The word ‘bali-daan’ (means ‘sacrifice’, but literally ‘gift of Bali’) might have been coined from the self-sacrificing act of King Bali.

The actual story (unlike the link) says that Vishnu in the garb of a dwarf steps over the earth in one step, the heavens in the second step and asks fo place to put his third step - at which time Bali offers his head.