Adityanath and the Hindus
Serious discussion takes places only when you question your own thought process in the light of what the other says. Discussion takes place when you want to know what makes the other think in a different way and if that is justified. There are many issues where both could be right or wrong! But if you think what you say is absolutely right and the other is wrong there cannot be any meaningful discussion.
Adityanath says the word "Hindu" means one belonging to Hindustan. The word is an Urdu word and came into the language after Muslim kingdoms were established here to denote that this is the nation where Hindus lived. The then Muslim invaders did not consider themselves to belong to this nation as our way of living was totally different to theirs. It should be noted that the invaders could not accept the word 'Bharat' prevalent at that time because it had political connotation inasmuch as it was derived from the name of the Indian King Bharat. Muslims who do not want to be known as Hindus believe that the word was coined specifically to indicate those who were living in India at the time of Muslims invasion and specifically excluded Muslims, the invaders. But as time passed, the word Hindu became to represent those with a different way of living as compared to Muslims. So naturally Muslims would not like to be known as Hindus.
The world now knows all of us as 'Indians'. In Tamil the word to represent us is Indian. Just because the word Indian is not found in Hindi lexicon, we do not have to accept the word 'Hindu' as an equivalent of Indian. Hindustani is the equivalent. Nobody, even Muslims, will have any objection to that. But as long as the word 'Hindu' has come to be known as a particular way of living, we should not apply it to all whose lives have hardly any resemblance to it.
Serious discussion takes places only when you question your own thought process in the light of what the other says. Discussion takes place when you want to know what makes the other think in a different way and if that is justified. There are many issues where both could be right or wrong! But if you think what you say is absolutely right and the other is wrong there cannot be any meaningful discussion.
Adityanath says the word "Hindu" means one belonging to Hindustan. The word is an Urdu word and came into the language after Muslim kingdoms were established here to denote that this is the nation where Hindus lived. The then Muslim invaders did not consider themselves to belong to this nation as our way of living was totally different to theirs. It should be noted that the invaders could not accept the word 'Bharat' prevalent at that time because it had political connotation inasmuch as it was derived from the name of the Indian King Bharat. Muslims who do not want to be known as Hindus believe that the word was coined specifically to indicate those who were living in India at the time of Muslims invasion and specifically excluded Muslims, the invaders. But as time passed, the word Hindu became to represent those with a different way of living as compared to Muslims. So naturally Muslims would not like to be known as Hindus.
The world now knows all of us as 'Indians'. In Tamil the word to represent us is Indian. Just because the word Indian is not found in Hindi lexicon, we do not have to accept the word 'Hindu' as an equivalent of Indian. Hindustani is the equivalent. Nobody, even Muslims, will have any objection to that. But as long as the word 'Hindu' has come to be known as a particular way of living, we should not apply it to all whose lives have hardly any resemblance to it.
Comments
Post a Comment