What is Hindutva????

[nogroup singh]

All,

You have heared about "Hindutva" all the time. If you are friends of them then you will see that they will tell you that they respect your gurus but the truth is clear that their main purpose is to establish Hindu Nation and destroy the democracy of India. im going to get all the questions from their website and let everyone clear them with Gurbani and Sikhism references so we can clear all the misconceptions for our youth.

They are not true Hindus as vast majority of hindus oppose them. So, you should not get hostility feelings towards Hindus as these "hindutva people" are extremists.

Click the below link to access their forum to see what their mission is?

http://pub32.ezboard.com/fhindutatvafrm1

[sevak]

I know this board.I use to post there. It is a VERY VERY VERY VERY BIASED FORUM. Its main Goal is to only promote Hinduism thats all and cruntch all religions !

[pritam]

Sikhi shall prevail.

[jsb]

mannnnnn.....reading that forum...dude, i was getting pissed... shoot...gonna hafta turn on some manjit singh or dulla veerji after that man...i'm pretty mad after reading their posts..... i know i shouldn't be..."moorkhay naal naa lujjiye".. but mann..

[mehtab]

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=27599

Besides being morally wrong, events like Babri Masjid demolition, Gujarat riots harm Hinduism itself

Kaushik Basu

It is time for the average Hindu to reclaim his religion from the madness being unleashed in its name by the VHP and the RSS.

The most recent complaint against India’s Muslims, namely, that they did not accept the Shankaracharya’s ‘‘reasonable offer’’ is absurd. The Kanchi Shankaracharya, true to his reputation, had started out in earnest — to engage in dialogue, to take and to give. But what was offered in the end, under relentless pressure from the VHP, was quite egregious. The Hindus would make no concessions — not on Kashi, not on Mathura. And the Muslims would gift the disputed land in Ayodhya to the Hindus.

But this makes a travesty of the term ‘‘gift’’. You can urge your own side to give away something. But asking the other side to gift something to you is a misuse of the word. And when that something happens to be land, created by the illegal demolition of a mosque, this amounts to taking a person hostage and then asking him to ‘‘gift’’ his watch to you.

This Ayodhya deadlock is just one in a line of events, beginning with the 1992 destruction of the Babri Masjid and continuing with the massacre in Gujarat, and the bending of the law to protect its perpetrators. Not only are these events morally wrong, they do great harm, ironically, to Hinduism itself.

Writing in the middle of the 19th century, Karl Marx had marvelled at the quiet robustness of Hindu civilisation. It would take blow after blow of invasions, the economy would shatter, the buildings break; but no sooner had the dust from the invading cavalry settled, it would become clear that Hinduism was intact, almost unchanged.

In some ways, it is also a religion of unrivalled openness. There is no central command that sets the rules of what a Hindu may or may not do. One can violate its rituals and still legitimately claim to be a Hindu. One can be an atheist and a Hindu, as was the sage Carvaka.

Aggression towards minorities, as are being preached by the VHP, is unbecoming of this great tradition. To whip up emotions by stoking fears that Hinduism is endangered and will perish unless it defends itself aggressively is to reveal an inferiority complex for which there is no basis.

The inclination to use the State to ban conversion is founded in this same complex and a failure to understand that Hinduism may not be loud, strident and proselytising, but it is strong. It faces no risk, except from its own fundamentalists, who, by imitating other fundamentalists, are for the first time threatening to change the very character of this ancient religion.

And while on this subject, I must add my own belief that, even if it were an endangered religion, there would be no moral reason to ban conversion. Religion is a personal matter. People should be free to preach; and if someone, as a consequence of this or simply because he is dissatisfied with his own religion, wants to switch to another faith, then so be it.

Hindus have often treated their own sub-groups poorly. ‘‘To the Untouchables, Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horrors,’’ wrote India’s most famous Untouchable, B.R. Ambedkar. He argued that Hinduism, as practiced, was ‘‘inconsistent with the self-respect and honour of the Untouchables’’ and that this ‘‘justifies (their) conversion’’. Ambedkar himself converted to Buddhism three weeks before his death on December 6, 1956.

If such conversions are thought to be offensive, then the lesson must be to reform the practices within Hinduism that lead to them, instead of using the State to block exit routes.

It is time the BJP government dissociates itself from the VHP-RSS combine. I know it is naive to expect politicians to live entirely by their morals. To be able to do what a politician wants to do, he needs to be in power, and this often necessitates compromises.

But at the same time even politicians must draw a line and decide that, beyond a point, it is better to lose an election than to be held hostage by a small fanatical group that has no respect for the law. The VHP has made it clear that if the ASI excavations yield no evidence of a temple, it will ignore the ASI; and if the Supreme Court does not rule in favour of a temple, it will use mass movement to counter the verdict.

One of the critical ingredients of a thriving economy is the rule of law. For the BJP government, this is a good occasion to drive this point home. A tragedy of this government is that it is spending too little time on things that matter (like creating prosperity for the people) and too much time on ‘‘politics’’. For a nation as poor as ours, the pressing need is to enhance growth, create employment and curb corruption.

India can achieve a growth rate of eight per cent per annum; it is in a position now to eradicate poverty. However, this will need determination, brainpower and time on the part of government to crafting and enforcing good economic policies. Our government is unfortunately so preoccupied with zero-sum political conflicts — Ayodhya, conversions, cow-slaughter, resurrection of Vedic Studies — that it is ignoring policies that can make a real difference to the lives of its citizens.

It needs to put Ayodhya behind it as quickly as possible. If its current stance is making an early resolution so difficult, I suggest that it tries what is only a slight modification of the venerable Shankaracharya’s plan. Ask the Hindus to gift the land where the Babri Masjid once stood to the Muslims.

— The writer is professor of economics at Cornell University and visiting professor at the Delhi School of Economics

[Guest Javanmard]

HIndutva is a shit boat floating in an ocean of piss driven by a fart's wind

[Jazz]

Hi all this is another site where the Hindus take the piss out of our religion. It needs to be stopped. They go about Guru Gobind Singh Ji and the zafarnama that he wrote.

The website: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6132

Jazz Singh

[Guest]

Lets not judge 900 million hindus from that website. Most of the Hindus on that site are extremists Hindus or follow RSS Propaganda and one of them has openly claimed it. I guess they spend their whole day on that site as Ali sena don't like sikhs so it gives them full freedom to spread their propaganda. Some Pakistani Extremists are there as well.... Its wild... :evil: :evil:

[jjj]

my blood boils when i read some of the statements on that forum. I cant control this anger. I would jump on them like a mad out of control Lion. Someone please help me.

[Guest Javanmard]

I take a special pleasure in going to these Hindutva meetings and make them look ridiculous. They're so stupid and lost hence their aggressiveness. The truth is that against an educated SIkh they can't do anything but do tati in their pentan!!!! :twisted: :twisted:

[Ideal Singh]

I take a special pleasure in going to these Hindutva meetings and make them look ridiculous. They're so stupid and lost hence their aggressiveness. The truth is that against an educated SIkh they can't do anything but do tati in their pentan!!!! :twisted: :twisted:

One thing also surprising yet pleasing is that no fundamentalist from any community has dared to come to Sikhawareness Forum to slander Sikhz...

Khudos !! to Adminz and Moderatorz... :bow:

[sukhasingh]

Every Sikh should be Sharp in all aspects be firm

[Guest]

One thing also surprising yet pleasing is that no fundamentalist from any community has dared to come to Sikhawareness Forum to slander Sikhz...

Khudos !! to Adminz and Moderatorz... :bow:

aaayaaie cc bahutt aagaiee...sarraie bajaa taaie.......grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

Khalsa roared :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[Ideal Singh]

‘‘Ideal Hindu Village’’

In Cong-ruled state, Bajrang Dal makes a village ‘Muslim-free’

ANURADHA NAGARAJ

AKLERA (RAJASTHAN), SEPT 27: It couldn't be less subtle. A bright saffron board welcomes you to the ‘‘Ideal Hindu Village’’, Mishroli. Nestled in picturesque green surroundings, the village has acquired this tag just this month.

The past 10 days have seen armed Bajrang Dal activists on the rampage, driving out about 25 Muslim families from their homes, ransacking their houses and setting them on fire.

‘‘This was never a Hindu village but they will make sure it becomes one,’’ says a distressed Iqbal Hussain as he tries to salvage the medicines in his Ayurveda dispensary. ‘‘Nobody wants to come back here, not after what we have been through.’’

Mishroli is at the epicentre of communal violence that has seen around 70 Muslim families of seven villages in Aklera leave their homes and migrate to neighbouring districts and Madhya Pradesh.

Bajrang Dal Suraksha Prabhari for Kota, Bharat Bhushan Sharma, warns: ‘‘We will create these Hindu villages which will run in accordance with our traditions and there will be full overall development here. They will surround Muslim-dominated pockets and if the Muslims create any public nuisance, they will have to pay the price. If they want to co-exist, they will have to live by our rules.’’

It all began on September 17. That morning, on a 45-odd-km stretch on National Highway 12, a ‘chakka jam’ by Bajrang Dal activists, angry at police arresting some people for not buying bus tickets, threw traffic out of gear. As police and the district administration desperately tried to manoeuvre their way through the streets, angry mobs walked down narrow village lanes in Aklera, identifying Muslim houses and tearing them down.

‘‘We saw them coming and ran into the fields to hide,’’ says Kanija Begum. ‘‘We saw them burn our houses and destroy the mosque nearby. As we saw the mosque crumble, we just ran away.’’

Next to Kanija Begum’s house in Gehunkheri village, the district administration is trying to reconstruct the mosque now. Sitting at his relative’s house in Aklera town, Siraj Mohammad says: ‘‘I look after the mosque and it is not easy for me to just walk back into this new thing they are building and pretend that nothing happened. Because it did.’’

According to the Muslims, they had told police they apprehended trouble on September 16 night itself, and had been promised forces by next morning.

However, Home Minister Gulab Singh Shaktawat denies police was late in reacting. ‘‘If people file verbal complaints, police can’t act. And there was no report of a written complaint,’’ he says. So far, police have arrested 31 people and registered 28 complaints. However, villagers allege that the masterminds, Devi Lal Meena and Kanwar Lal Meena, are still absconding.

New Bajrang Dal recruits in Mishroli village blame everything on the Muslims who ‘‘killed a peacock on Janmashtami day’’. ‘‘Ever since there has been trouble,’’ says Bhoj Raj. ‘‘And then that Muslim bus driver took our activists to the police station saying we were not buying tickets. We were willing to pay but he wasn’t giving us the ticket.’’

The Bajrang Dal too blames police for the violence, with its Vibhag Sangathan Mantri Khushpal Singh Chauhan saying the problem started because they were ‘‘over-sensitive to the Muslims’’.

ASP Jhalawar Ram Niwas Sharma denies this. ‘‘They were travelling without tickets and so the driver brought the bus to the Aklera police station where they attacked policemen.’’

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=32403

[Geezer]

They are not true Hindus as vast majority of hindus oppose them. So, you should not get hostility feelings towards Hindus as these "hindutva people" are extremists.

In a nutshell thats correct, especially the current face of Indian Hindutva. Because they are misinterpreting the true meaning of Hindutva. The truth is, nobody would have bothered to differentiate between Hinduism and Hindutva if it wasnt for the right-wing political parties in India. The current face of Hindutva is therefore political and secular and not spiritual or religious, meaning that it does not stand for Hinduism but rather a cultural and oppressive nationalism. Non-Hindus will have secondary status under such a reign and as all of you have said...its wrong.

The true Hindutva accepts all forms of belief and worship as sacred and if this was implemented properly, it would be a freedom state where all religions in India(Hindusim, Sikhism, Islam, Buddhism, Jains etc) would peacefully co-exist. But as always, humans are the driving force in misusing and ill-practising religion. So therefore whoever believes in hindutva, please come back to the practices of ahimsa, shakti and dharma.

[Jamuka]

nogroup singh wrote:

They are not true Hindus as vast majority of hindus oppose them. So, you should not get hostility feelings towards Hindus as these "hindutva people" are extremists.

In a nutshell thats correct, especially the current face of Indian Hindutva

I disagree. Most Hindus secretly believe Sikhism is PART of Hinduism or a sect anyway. The problem with Hinduism is that it is undefinable. The word Hindu was given by the English to various cults and beliefs that were being practised in India at the time. FYI, Tamil Hinduism is words apart from Hinduism practised in the North. Besides, these Hindu have nothing to be proud of so they try claiming what is not theirs to be part of their stupid religion.------------------------

Mods note: how about instead of writeing racist slurs, why dont you write critique! Please modify your post!

Dear Moderator, I hope the changes I have made above are to your liking. Is calling a religion stupid against any of the rules here? I am sorry but I find Hinduism a religion is retarded and bereft of any good qualities. These are my sincere opinions. Anybody who worships a penus needs serious therapy.

[Niranjana]

"Hindu Monkeys"...there we have it, spoken like a "true Gursikh" follower of the "Tat Gurmat Maryada"! Bhai Sahib, there are a number of other well known sites presently very popular with certain members of the Sikh Youth who would love to hear such comments on their forums...unfortunately for you, this is not one of them...

Have a good day...

Gur Fateh!

[Geezer]

I disagree. Most Hindus secretly believe Sikhism is PART of Hinduism or a sect anyway.

Some Hindus, not most. You'll be surprised to know that some Sikhi actually believe that Sikhism is a re-purification of Bhakti Hinduism and a branch of Sufi Islam. Others believe it is a direct revelation from God. Some Jews and some Christians even believe that Islam is a mix of the two. Diverse views hena?

The problem with Hinduism is that it is undefinable.

No definition justifies the true meaning of Hinduism. In the early days, Hindus did not feel the need to define the essentials of Hinduism or to prove it different from other religions until Buddhism came about as well as the invasion of Muslims and Christians.

The word Hindu was given by the English to various cults and beliefs that were being practised in India at the time.

Much to your surprise, the term itself has its origins in Sanskrit language. 'Sapta Sindhu' - the land of the great rivers(I think). Im not gonna explain all because I assume you have very little attention span. And also, if you were a little more educated you would know that the Greeks and Persians invaded India well before the British.

FYI, Tamil Hinduism is wolrds apart from Hinduism practised in the North.

Its called cultural diversity my friend. Factors such as geography, social caste, demography cannot be ignored, do you even know how far the North of India is from Colombo?

Besides, these Hindu monkeys have nothing to be proud of so they try claiming what is not theirs to be part of their stupid monkey tale of a religion.

I dare to think that there are more like yourself out there. I believe with 'Hindu monkeys' you refer to those neo-Hindutva followers, but 'monkey tale of a religion'? You should really think twice before speaking about somebody else's belief like that.

[Jamuka]

"Hindu Monkeys"...there we have it, spoken like a "true Gursikh" follower of the "Tat Gurmat Maryada"! Bhai Sahib

Spoken like a true Hindu apologist. Tell that to the thousands of Sikhs in Punjab who's religion is officially not recognised. Why is Sikhism recognised around the globe but not in your beloved 'mother India'? Sikhs need to wake up to the reality of this ugly cult. Raja Ranjit Singh was a big time Hindu apologist and look where it has gotten us.

Some Hindus, not most. You'll be surprised to know that some Sikhi actually believe that Sikhism is a re-purification of Bhakti Hinduism and a branch of Sufi Islam. Others believe it is a direct revelation from God. Some Jews and some Christians even believe that Islam is a mix of the two. Diverse views hena?

There are some people who believe they are martians from the planet Mars. Just like Sikhs who believe Sikhism is a re-purification of the Bhakti movement, I really don't care. The truth is the truth and no matter how many lies Hindus weave, the SGGS has the truth. Sikhs are not Hindus and vice versa.

No definition justifies the true meaning of Hinduism. In the early days, Hindus did not feel the need to define the essentials of Hinduism or to prove it different from other religions until Buddhism came about as well as the invasion of Muslims and Christians.

Jeez, you are definitely on the top of the list of ignoramouses. You are truly a character. Read this and wake yourself up to the truth of your religion.

The English Invention of Hinduism

Non-Existence of Hinduism Before 1830

Hinduism did not exist before 1830. It was created by the English colonialsts in the 1830s. This remarkable circumstance is evidenced by the fact that none of the travellers who visited India before English rule used the word `Hindu' or 'Sanatana'. This is amply borne out by the Encyclopedia Britannica, which states :

" The term Hinduism ... [ was ] introduced in about 1830 by British writers. "

-- [ EB 20 `Hinduism ' 519 ]

In other words, the founding father of 'Hinduism' is an Englishman ! Nowhere in the Vedas, Puranas or any other religious text prior to 1830 AD are the terms `Hindu' or `Sanatana Dharma' used. Not a single inscription contains the terms `Hindu' or `Sanatana' prior to the Muslim era. The myth that Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma existed prior to this has been discarded in many theological circles, and the fantasy that Santana Dharma is `One Religion' has been abandoned -

" The term "Hindusthan" was first used by a 12th century AD Afghan dynasty of Muhammad Ghori who dubbed his new subjects "Hindus". Prior to this era, no one in any region of South Asia had ever used these terms to define themselves."

There is no mention of either of these terms in "ancient Brahmanical books (the oldest of which do not predate the 11th century; also the oldest "Brahmanical" temples are all post Buddhist, after 8-9th century A.D.). Ironically, two of the three core concepts of the Poorbia Brahmanist imperialistic program of "Hindu and Hindusthan" are borrowed from post-12th century Muslim (Afghan and Mogul) regimes." --[ Khals ]

In recent years has arisen the movement for a revival of Dravidian religion. Two of the main proponents of this movement have exploded the fallacy of the `Sanatana Dharma' concept invented by a European-Smarta-Brahmin conspiracy as follows -

" We are cognizant of the fact that the term 'Hindu religion' can not be found before the arrival of the Europeans in India. We are also aware of the fact that it was the Europeans who coined the term 'Hindu religion' to denote the Indian religions that were originated in India and followed by the Indians.

Since the term 'Hindu religion' denotes all the religions of India together, it cannot refer to any particular religion. And since the term 'Hindu religion' consists of many religions which have different doctrines and are contrary to each other, there will be leaders for each religion and there cannot be a common leader for all the religions since they are controversial to each other.

For instance, how can there be a common leader for both Buddhism and Saivism, which are contrary to each other. Hence the belief that there is a common leader for Hindu religion is superstitious and displays ignorance. Hence, the statement that 'The Brahmins are the leaders of Hindu religion' exhibits ignorance and deceptive. "

[ Deva ]

Indeed, the Aryan race of Brahmins were never the leaders of any of the religions of Dravidian religion, Kolarian religion, Buddhism or Jainism. They were only the leaders of the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, which includes Vedism and Vaishnavism -

" History reveals that the Europeans coined the term Hindu religion and saw nothing wrong in doing so. "

-- [ Dev ]

Hinduism is hence an invention of the Europeans, nothing more and nothing less. It should more properly be subdivided into the religions of Brahmanism and Shaivism, Shaktism, Tantrism and Saurism.

Greeks and Indian Religions

The Aryans referred to the region now known as 'Punjab' (Persian `Land of 5 Rivers'), as 'Sapta Sindhu'. In Old Achaemenid Persian this became 'Hapta Hindwa', and 'Hindwa' then meant `Inhabitant of the Indus', completely without religious significance. In Greek 'Hindwa' became 'Indoi' (Indian), whence the Latin 'Indus' river and 'India'. The Greeks expanded the meaning of India to include the entire subcontinent. It was never used to denote any religion in Greek or Latin. The Greeks never used the word 'Hindu', nor did the Romans.

Arabs and 42 Indian Religions

In Old Persian `Hindwa' denoted only the 'Region around the Indus River' and not the whole of India. In Pahlavi or Middle Persian this developed into 'Hindustan' (The Land of the Indus) but still denoted only the region around the Indus river. It was later Sanskritised to 'Hindusthan'. This meaning was later distorted to denote 'Land of Hindus'. In recent years the terms 'Dravida Nadu' or 'Dravidistan' and 'Dalitstan' have been coined to denote the regions where Dravidoids and Dalits respectively are a majority. 'Sudra Nadu' or `Sudrastan' has developed as an umbrella term for Dravidistan and Dalitstan. A full one-third of all Negroes in the world inhabit this Sudrastan, and Pan-Negroism has played a considerable role in the spread of this movement.

The Arabs adopted the Old Persian 'Hindwa' as 'Hind' (India) and 'Hindwi' (Indian). Neither of these words were used as applying to any religion; they were purely geographical and national terms. None of the medieval Arab travellers was aware of one single monolithic faith being practiced. In fact, all the Arab travellers referred to the Indians as practicing 42 different religions :

" Ibn Khurdaba has described that in India there are 42 religions. Al Idrisi also observes that 'Among the principal nations of India there are 42 sects. Some recognise the existence of a creator, but not of prophets, while others deny the existence of both. Some acknowledge the intercesory powers of graven stones, and others worship holy stones, on which butter and oil is poured. Some pay adoration to fire, and cast themselves into the flame. Others adore the sun and consider it the creator and director of the world. Some worship trees; others pay adoration to serpents, which they keep in stables, and feed as well as they can. deeming this to be a meritous work. Lastly, there are some who give themselves no trouble about any kind of devotion, and deny everything." ' --[ Arab.p.57 ].

Al Idrisi's description of Indian religions given above presents a clear description of the many different faiths practiced in India. He has accurately described the existence of Sun-worshippers (Rajput Sauras) and Atheists (Carvakas) as separate religions. None of the Arab travellers was aware of there being only one religion in India. This proves that `Sanatana Dharma' did not exist at that time.

Some of the Arab travellers even increased the number of Indian religions to 48:

" The Jamiu-l Hikayat increases the number of religions in India to 48 "--[ Arab.57.n1 ]

An exhaustive treatment of the Indian religions is given later on. To summarize, in the words of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, " The word [ Hindu ] was never used in Indian literature or scriptures before the advent of Muslims to India " [ ERE.6.699 ], cf. also [ Tirtha.p.vii ]. If at all it was used in a racial sense, " the Muslim rulers used the term 'Hindu' [ correctly `Hindooi' ] to mean Indian non-Muslims only." [ Basic ]

The traveller Qazwini has also described the various different religions prevalent in ancient India, clearly mentioning Brahmanism as a separate religion :

" Qazwini (1203 AD - 1280 AD) says that there are various sects among the people of Hind. Some believe in the creator, but not the propher. They are the Brahmans. There are some who believe in neither. There are some who worship idols, some the moon and some other, fire." --[ Nain.230 ]

Asokan inscriptions also contain the term `brahmana va sramana', indicating a fundamental distinction between the Brahminists, followers of the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, and the Sramanas or `nastika' heretics. Qazwini correctly describes Brahmanism as accepting a creator - God, something which the Sramanas do not do. Qazwini's "there are some who believe in neither" almost definitely refers to these nastiks (Jains, Buddhists, Atheists). Yet another traveller Abul Faaj (988 AD) mentioned the sects of India, and was completely unaware of the existance of `One Religion':

" al-Dinikitiya - These are worshippers of the Sun. They have an idol placed upon a cart supported by 4 horses. They believe that the Sun is the king of the angels deserving worship and adoration. They prosrate themselves before this idol, walk round it with incense, playing the lute and other musical instruments .. " [ Nain.228 ] .

" al-Jandrihkriya " [ Chandra + kranti ] " They are worshippers of the moon. They say that the moon is one of the angels deserving honour and adoration. Their custom is to set up an idol, to represent it, on a carrt drawn by 4 ducks. In the head of this idol is a gem called jandarkit" [ Nain.229 ] [ jandarkit is moonstone, "said to emit moisture when placed in the moonlight, and believed by some to be a congelation of the moon's rays." Nain.229.n3 ] " Anshaniyya " [ Sans. Anasana - fasting ] " those who abstain from food and drink " [ Nain.230 ]

" Bakrantiniya are those who fetter their bodies with iron. Their practice is to shave off hair and beard and not to cover the body except for the private parts. It is not their custom to teach or speak with anyone apart from those of their religion." [ Nain.230 ]

" Kangayatra [ Gangayatra ] " scattered throughout Hind. Their belief is that, if a man commits a grave sin, he must travel to the Ganges [ and ] ... wash [in it]" [Nain.230 ]

" Rahmarniyya [ Raja + Tam. manam = honour, self-respect; rajapimani = supporters of the king ] They say, "God, exalted be He, made them kings. If we are slain in the service of kings, we reach paradise." [ Nain.230 ]

" There is another sect whose practice is to grow long hair." do not drink wine, ... temple on hill called hawran [ Nain.230 ]

Hence, there existed at the time of the Arabs several distinct religions. This is simply because `Hinduism' or `Sanatana Dharma' had not yet been invented by the Europeans. Like many aspects of early Indology, the concept of `Hinduism' was overly simplistic and utterly baseless.

According to Jawaharlal Nehru, the earliest reference to the word 'Hindu' can be traced to a Tantrik book of the eighth century C.E., where the word means a people, and not the followers of a particular religion. The use of the word 'Hindu' in connection with a particular religion is of a very late occurrence [ Nehru, p.74-75 ].

Portuguese and Gentoos

The Portuguese never even used the word 'Hindu' or `Santana' or any of the variants to denote any Indian religion, proving that Hinduism, did not exist as a concept at the time of the Portuguese. Instead, they referred to the `Hindus' as `Gentoos'. Portuguese dictionaries give the following definition of `Gentoo':

Gentio (Hindu, gentile, a heathen, pagan)

+ applied by the Portuguese to the Hindus in contradistinction to the Mouros, or Moors ie. Mohammedans. [ Asia, p.167-168 ]

+ Anglo-Ind. `gentoo', Konk. jintu

Gentilico (`the language of the Hindus')

+ `em gentilico' in the Hindu or vernacular langauge

+ still applied to the Telugu language

The word `Gentoo' still survives in usage, and is applied to the Telugus:

" The word `gentoo' is used at the present time only in Madras of the Telugu-speaking Hindus and their language." --[ Asia, p.168 ]

Duarte Barbosa

As an illustration of the fact that Sanatana Dharma did not exist at the time of the Portuguese, a few quotations from Duarte Barbosa, a Portuguese traveller who visited India, are given. The Indians are always referred to as `Gentoos':

" And before this kingdom of Guzerate fell into the hands of the Moors, a certain race of Gentios whom the Moors called Resbutos dwelt therein."

[ Duarte Barbosa, ed. Dames, Vol. I, p.109 cited in Asia, p.167.n3 ]

" And in this kingdom there is another sort of Gentio whom they call Baneanes."

[ Duarte Barbosa, ed. Dames Vol. I, p.109 in Asia, p.167.n4 ]

Contemporary Documents

Documents from the early modern period also do not mention `Sanatanis'; they only mention `Gentoos':

" The Originall of this Petition (to Charles II) ... is signed by 225 of the principalest inhabitants of this Island, viz.

123: Christians and

84: Gentuis

18: Moores "

-- [ `Anglo-Portuguese Negotiations relating to Bombay 1660-1677' (OUP) by S.A.Khan, p.453 ]

Another term used by Europeans as applying to the followers of Native Indian Religions was `Banian'. " The early European travellers applied the term [ Banian ] to the followers of the Hindu religion generally " [Asia, p.38 ] The term in fact denotes a Jain trader (from vaniyan Sansk. vanij, trader).

Creation of Hinduism after 1830 by the English Colonialists

The Brahmins of India actively collaborated with the English colonialists in their conquest of India. As a result, the English rewarded them by inventing the designation `Leaders of Hinduism' for their loyal servants, their Aryan Brahmin cousins.

Gentoos & Anglo-Indians

The English came to India after the Portuguese, and due to the immense cultural influence of the latter, the English also adopted the word Gentoo as applying to any follower of an Indian religion:

" The first digest of Indian legislation, which was complied under orders of Warren Hastings and published in 1773, has the title `A Code of Gentoo Law'."--[Asia,p.168]

Yule is led to believe that the English form Gentoo did not come into general use till late in the 17th century. [ Asia.168 ]

Nor did the early English travellers use the words `Hindu' or `Sanatani', instead they used the Portuguese word `Gentoo':

" The late scarcity of provisions necessitating us to take some cows from the Jentue inhabitants to supply the fleet... "

-- [ Forrest, Selections, Home Series, Vol. II, p.31 cited in Asia,p.167.n1 ]

" The Gentues , the Portugal Idiom for Gentiles, are the Aborigines, who enjoyed their freedom till the Moors or Scythian Tartars .. undermining them, took advantage of their Civil Commotions."

-- [ Fryer, East India, Hak. Soc. Vol. I, p.81 in Asia, p.167.n1 ]

Thus the concept of `Hindu' or `Sanatani' as applying to a religion did not exist, nor were any of these terms used by the early English colonialists. Hence, even by the time of the early English colonialists `Hinduism' did not exist.

Invention of Hinduism by English Census-Compilers

The English census-compilers were assigned the daunting task of conducting the Indian head-count by the British government. These people were not theologians, and coined the term `Hindu' as a blanket term to encompass several religions. Thus a `Hindu' was defined in the Census as anybody who was not Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, or Jain. It was thus an exclusivist term: Hinduism was defined by what it was not, and not by what it was. It is hence entirely unsuitable as a definition. Later the term Sanatana Dharma was invented to deliberately submerge the English creation of Hinduism. In the words of the Babri Masjid archive [ Basic ] :

" Finding it difficult to get the names of the religions of these communities, the British writers gave them the word "Hinduism" to be used as a common name for all of their religions in about 1830." --[ Basic citing EB 20:581]

Indeed, the concept of Hinduism was invented by the English with the ulterior motive of making their loyal servents, the Aryan Brahmins, the rulers of India.

" The Europeans who came to India in 1498 A.D. for the purpose of establishing trade became the rulers of India. History reveals that the Aryan Brahmins were the supporters and assistants for the Europeans to capture the political power of India and enslave the Indians . It is a political strategy to befriend the traitors within a country in order to get its secrets and capture its political power. " -- [ Dev ]

All the invasions of India by foreigners were engineered by the Brahmins. They actively collaborated with the Portuguese, helping them to conquer large parts of India. The offices of the Mughal empire were full of Brahmin conspirators. A full one-third of the British Bengal army was Brahmin. Indeed, the answer to the much-asked question, `Why has Indian history been a series of invasions ?' is `The Brahmins engineered them !' -

" If the history of India is analyzed, it is revealed that the Aryan Brahmins have acted as the traitors through the ages. They also betrayed India to the Europeans. The term Aryans denote the group of people who came to India in different periods without any religion, " --[ Dev ]

In this connection one need only remember that the Brahmin Canakya engineered the Macedonian invasion of India by Alexander the Great. Through his protege Candragupta Maurya, Canakya lured the Greeks deep into the Punjab. With the troops and mercenaries provided by Alexander, Canakya and Candragupta managed to overthrow the indigenous dynasty of Magadha and succeeded in imposing the first totalitarian state the world had ever seen : the Mauryan Empire. A few decades later, the Bactrian Greeks followed up on Canakya the Brahmin's open invitation, and annexed major parts of India.

Ulterior Motives in Creation of Hinduism

The creation of Hinduism, the subsequent formation of Sanatana Dharma and the propagation of these concepts is mainly due to vested interests with the following ulterior motives.

Reward of Brahmin Collaborators - As shown above, the main motive in the English invention of Hinduism was to reward their Aryan Brahmin collaborators with an imagined leadership of all of Hinduism and by extension, all of India. Such were the services rendered to the British crown that not only were the Brahmins made leaders of India at that time, but the whole of Indian history was completely falsified to portray them as the `eternal rulers of all Hindus'.

Dravidianism Suppressed - India obtained Independance from Anglo-Brahmin and Brahmin-Portuguese rule in 1947. However, the new state that arose was merely a neo-Brahminist casteocracy. One of the main `threats' to the integrity of the new Aryan Brahmin-ruled republic was the spectre of Dravidian Nationalism. The Sudroids (Dravidoids and Kolarians) represent the original inhabitants of India, who were later subjugated by the Aryan invaders. They form the overwhelming majority in Southern India, and strong demands existed for a separate Dravidian nation. Ambedkar and many others fought for recognition of the Dravidian Religion as separate from the Hindu religion, but M.K.Gandhi foiled these attempts, and succeeded in temporarily subverting the Dravidians in Hinduism. The British were reluctant to recognise the Dravidian religion, since it would have antagonised their Brahmin collaborators. This is one of the prime motives behind the invention of Hinduism.

Vaishnavite Ambitions - Since the majority of `Hindus' were Brahminist Vaishnavites in any case, it was hoped that Vaishnavism would thus become a synonym for Hinduism, thereby subverting Shavism (Dravidian Religion), Smartism, etc. in one go.

Christian Missionaries - The creation of Hinduism suited the missionaries who did not have to deal with any Indian theological system. Christianity historically made the greatest inroads in `pagan' (ie. religions lacking a developed sustem of theology) regions, while failing in areas where `devoloped' religions like Islam, Confucianism, etc. By creating Hinduism and submerging thereby Vaishnavism, Jainism, Buddhism, Saurism, etc. into `One Great Pagan Religion' they had to deal with `merely another pagan cult'. Hence, `Hinduism' served the interests of the Christian missionaries.

English Imperialism - The creation of Hinduism entailed inclusion of the Negroid-Australoid Aboriginal Races of India as `Hindu'. Thus, English dominion in India was justified by claiming that it represented a pious mission to `civilize the pagan natives'.

Aryanism Suppressed - English colonial rule was justified by the rule of `Whites' over `non-Whites'. Accepting the existence of `Aryans' in India would have meant a nullification of this justification, since a sizeable fraction of India's population would be `white' and would not require `white' Anglo-Saxon rule. The submergence of Indo-Aryans as `Hindus' served to suppress this menace to British rule. The early Arya Samajists realised this attempt to subvert the identitiy of Aryans. and staunchly opposed the use of the word `Hindu'; a move equally opposed by the British. By denying `white' status to Indo-Aryans (a fact since proven by genetics). the English justified rule over `non-whites'.

Rajputism Suppressed - The Rajputs are descendants of the Scythians, Greeks, and other immigrants who entered India just prior to the rise of the Indo-Islamic Caliphate of Delhi. Throughout their history they followed their Solar religions (`saura' cults), independant of any Aryan Vaishnavite Brahmans. Yet the invention of Hinduism served to subvert Saura religion as well.

Smarta Subversion - The creation of Hinduism suited the Smartas (Advaitins) most of all, since their religion was defined in terms of giving equal worship to 5 major gods of India, as well as a whole host of others. It remained a very minor religion in India, having been propagated only by Sankaracharya and being localised mainly in Kerala. The overwhelming majority of Hindus were (and still are) Vaishnavites (more than 75 %). However, the definition of `Hinduism' was essentially Smarta, and by propagating `Hinduism' the Smartas hoped to submerge their old rivals the Vaishnavites.

Noted Sikh author G.S.Khalsa has amply pointed out the manner in which Hinduism was invented :

" The Brahmanists came to power on the Congress elephant by deviously converting the pre-independence political debate and struggle into a communal Hindu-Muslim religious struggle. This was made possible by the master stroke of Mahatama Gandhi - the Hindu nationalist cum holy sadhu who made "Hindus" a 55% majority on paper in the 1920s upon getting the Dalits or "untouchables" (20%) dubbed as "Hindus" by the British. This coup moved the "Hindus" from 35% to a 55% majority in British India. In pre-independence India, Muslims were 25%, Sikhs/Christians/ Buddhists/ tribals/etc. formed the remaining 20%. This action, along with recognition of Congress as the sole political representative of all Indians in national matters, was a payoff by the British colonial authorities to the Brahmanist lead Congress and Gandhi for loyal services rendered to Queen and empire in supporting their WWI war effort; recruiting the "martial" communities (e.g. Sikhs, Jats, Rajputs, Gujars of Saka-origin) of the northwest and Muslims to go fight for the British Empire in Europe/ middle east; subduing, opposing, infiltrating and sabotaging other non-Congress/non-Brahmanist lead political parties and independence movements organized at home (who saw British weakness during the war as an ideal opportunity). The 55% fraudulent "Hindu pile" was little more than a political game of Brahmanist politicians and political parties in Delhi while caste Hindus would not eat/touch/marry/socialize or even worship with their "polluted" Dalits (20% untouchables) in the 1920s. After this "victory on paper", Brahmanist politicians, political parties, and organizations totally communalized pre-independence politics along "Hindu/Muslim" religious lines of "nationhood" to get on the road to empire and Delhi. " --[ Khals ]

Indeed, Encyclopedia Britannica accepts that `Hinduism' is a blanket term covering several religions and does not refer to a single religion :

" Hinduism is both a civilization and a congregation of religions ; it has neither a beginning nor a founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy or organization. Every attempt at a specific definition of Hinduism has prvoed unsatisfactory in one way or antoher." -- [ EB.20 `Hinduism' 519-520 ]

Hinduism is not a revealed religion and, therefore, has neither a founder nor definite teachings or common system of doctrines [ 7 ]. It has no organization, no dogma or accepted creeds. There is no authority with recognized jurisdiction. A man, therefore, could neglect any one of the prescribed duties of his group and still be regarded as a good Hindu.

Invention of Sanatana Dharma by Smartas

Subsequent to the invention of Hinduism the followers of the different Indian religions realised that the word 'Hindu' and 'The Religion of Hinduism' were English inventions. This caused much embarassment, and many Vaishnavites, Shavites etc, declared that they were followers of different religions, which they actually are. Had this process reached its full development, there would have been no problem. However, some Smartas and other vested interests attempted to preserve the superficial unity which the English creation of Hinduism had given. Hence, the English concept of 'Hinduism' was renamed as `Sanatana Dharma' in order to fabricate a Sanskritic name for the concept. The word `Sanatana' was created in sometime in the 19th century as an attempt to replace the foreign word 'Hindu'.

The non-Muslim people of the South Asian subcontinent called Hindu had no precise word for their religions [ Land ]. They were, as they are, divided into thousands of communities and tribes, each having its own religious beliefs, rituals, modes of worship, etc.

The Smarta religion arose "by the 7th century, when the Smartas inistituted their worship of 5 deities, omitting Brahma, he had lost all claims as a superior diety. " [ EB 2.460 ]

" The people called Hindu have nothing common in their religious affairs. 'Hinduism', therefore, cannot give any precise idea as to what it means. Attempts were made to define the term but could not succeed. " --[ Basic ]

To summarise, realising that Hinduism was in fact an English invention; this circumstance becoming widely known and the cause of much satire on `Hinduism' and its English invention, the Brahmin Vaishnavas invented the term `Sanatana Dharma' in order to counter these difficulties :

" Faced with this dilemma, Hindu scholars sometime use the word Sanatan Dharma (eternal religion) and sometime Vedic Dharma (religion of the Veda), etc. for their religion. But as names of their religion, these words are also untenable as they do not imply anything precise for all the people called Hindu." --[ Basic ]

Much to your surprise, the term itself has its origins in Sanskrit language. 'Sapta Sindhu' - the land of the great rivers(I think). Im not gonna explain all because I assume you have very little attention span. And also, if you were a little more educated you would know that the Greeks and Persians invaded India well before the British.

Everybody knows that regarding 'origination'. Read the article above and educate yourself.

Its called cultural diversity my friend. Factors such as geography, social caste, demography cannot be ignored, do you even know how far the North of India is from Colombo?

Hello fool, since when can a religon can differ because of 'cultural diversity? Can Sikhism in the US be practised differently in the UK because of 'cultural diversity'? Can Christianity be practised differently in Europe compared to Asia? There may be different sects within any religion but cultural diversity cannot change a religion. If it has then it is no more the religion what it was menat to be. Tamil Hindus carry the Kavadi, a concept/practise which is totally alien to Northern Indian Hinduism. FYI Northern Hindus do not recognise this act as part of Hinduism.

I dare to think that there are more like yourself out there. I believe

I really hope there are more like me.

You should really think twice before speaking about somebody else's belief like that.

I understand that what I have said is not 'politically correct' so it may hurt the feelings of Hindu apologists like you. Unlike you, I will calla spade a spade when I see one. I don't believe in lying to mysef or to anybody else. I don't believe in living in a fools world.

[vijaydeep Singh]

Ek Oankar Wahiguru Ji Ki Fateh

In old sanatan dharmi scriptures there is no mentioned of word Hindutva.

It is a new term made by word Hindu.

many people claim that in farsi Sindhu river was pronounce as Hindu river and people living around there were called Hindus. As per them in Farsi we do not have sound for sa so they used ha . therefore all Indians are Hindus.

Whereas they are talking of the time when in persia the letters were used called khete meekhee means writing of pins as pins were used to engrave upon clay tiles or rocks.That script contained sa sound.

Latter on after the muslim conquest of Iran the arabic script with 4 new sounds(to sound Ga(gaf),Pa(pe),Cha(che) and easzei) to suit farsi constants were introduced.

But in the script of arbic 3 sound were there to depicts sa ie seen,swad and sei. So as per the article from the sikh phulwari of Sikh Missionary College Ludhiana farsi people called india Sindhuana may be that could be the reason of calling it India.

If we see Hindustan also how can Sa is missing in begening ang comeing at stan. Had farsi not have sa so name could be hinduhtan.

There was a case in Chandigarh High court over a Sikh professor who told the truth(he was later aquited) he told that in Iran vide old farsi Hindu means "black man". It is an insulting phrase. Similarly like "babu" as it is drived by word babbon(ape of africa) which british conquere use to call Indian.

Due to this it is good for hindus to call themselves as Sanatan Dharmi and stop caling themselves as well as Sikhs as hindus.

Now comes Indian nationalism. Thease people worship bharat mata a female deity depicting the land of India. so indian people worshiping Bharat Mata are more a cult which worships nature's element here it is land of India.

In Gurmat also Land is termed as mother but worshiping can be only of God who is undestructable eternal. Is not that true that part of thier bharat mata are destroyed when Afghanistan was made,Pakistan,Bangladessh were made. When Part of kashmir was taken over by Pakistan and China. When China took control of large part of Arunanchal Pradesh.

Gurmat treats whole world as mata, In olden Vedas country of Aryan was Brahmavart that is circle over all matter. This means they considered whole univeres as there countrey. They were not narrow minded as the worshippers of Bharat Mata.

They belived in Vasudheva Kutumkam i.e. whole world is a family. Gurmat also says “Sagal Jamati man Jeete Jagjeet” ie all are family and if you win mind you win world. So narrow mindedness is to be overcome.

India worshippers could know that neither their forefathers belived in borders of countries nor did Sikhs Gurus nor do Sikhs clubbing them with term Deshbhakt(devoted to country) is an irony. We are only devouted to Akal our eternal God. We do not serve the land of India but we serve peoples who are the manifestations of Akal. So do Das calls all Hindus to worship Akal and unit.

I request moderator that if any hindu brother has doubt on it let him put on forum.

[Hari]

Well said Vijaydeep Singh.Not even once is the word "hindu" or "hind" mentioned in any ancient Indian scriptures, like Bhagvad Gita, Yoga Sutra etc.Like I mentioned before, hindu refers to a low caste (black skinned person) or dog.I don't know why there are idiots out there who are happy to call themsleves hindu.

[vijaydeep Singh]

Ek Oankar Wahiguru Ji Ki Fateh

Sangat Ji Das is sorry for posting the same thing again due to the error of ommosiion. Anyway all Hindus are not fools ,and many are realising the falcity of such term. But one thing is true,They are most exploited lot.

Not only that thier enemise exploit them but thier own leader divide them ,on regional,sectornal or castist bases. Only answer to such thing is thier conversion to Khalsa order(das too was hindu before becoming Sikh).

But being true Sikhs we need to remember the ploicy of Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bhindrawale(who is considered as terrorists by many hindus,Das knows a punjabi making fun of Sant Ji by equating him with laden but his commnets to be followed are opposite to the idealogy of laden). As per him It is best for Hindus to be Sikh.

But if they do not become Sikhs,Than they must be encourged to follow thier customs fully. Few Hindus wear Jeneu,or Tilak or Shika(choti on head). But Sant Ji Wanted such things to be encouraged in Hindus.

As hinduismism is term of matterial(nation) so they lack sprituality. Lack sacrifise to die for faith. If even they unite to worship Akal now, or even remain spritually devoted to Dhrama(right way as told in Vedas and Vedanata) they can getsalvation. But if they become Khalsa they Can be salvaged while being alive.