You say Arabs mispronounced the word Sindhu as Hindu. Your presumption is that Sindhu is an Indian word although the river is in Pakistan. You should realize that the word Sindhu is an Indo-European word (Sanskrit is an Indo European language and is very similar to other Indo European language like Persian). Do you know that the word India has very similar origins? Many historians believe that the word India came from the word Indus (which is also the name of the river Sindhu). According to you the word Hindu is Indian but the word India is “western influenced”. This is a joke!

Like many of your other posts you also misrepresent statements made by others and try to smear them. You state that “As you beleive like Nehru that what ever comes from west is best…”. Did I make such a statement? Did Nehru make that statement? This is disappointing. You are a strong supporter of Baba Ramdev. You are trying to make the case that Ramdev and his supporters will make a difference for India. But unfortunately like all other politicians and their supporters you are willing to say what it takes to make your point. Integrity is missing.

I prefer using the term India to describe India because the term Bharat is the term used by certain North Indians. You will rarely hear a South India or an Indian from the North East refer to India as Bharat. Also the Indian constitution states that people of India can refer to India as India or Bharat. I am simply exercising my constitutional right. I have no problem with you using the word Bharat.

I really do not care that much about how other cultures are treating Indians or Indian scriptures. If they are treating us badly then it is a poor reflection of their culture and society. As an Indian I do care deeply about how we treat each other. So when I see discrimination in the name of Hinduism or for that matter any religion in my own motherland it is in my nature to speak out.

Oh Yes we don’t have Documentary evidence to prove the existence of Pandavas and Kauravas (Like we have evidence for Jesus and mohammad), so no point in agreeing to our country to be renamed as Bharat..
Right Mr Hari …

But I agree that all human being should be allowed to visit all the temples, mousque church including Macca and Madina..
I know the fact that Mahadevi Verma(the Imminent Writer and Poet) has been stopped at Badrinath.. Our Nehru and Indira have also stopped and denied entry to Badrinath..

Also I known one fact from few freinds in UAE that Arab country won’t allow some one to carry religious documents like Bible, Gita, if found, get executed without any court orders.
You know why, because they consider such person having the motive to convert the masses..
See in whole of the Asia, starting from Thailand, malaysia, etc etc.. People knock at your door carrying Bible and asking to get converted.. Who fund these people.. any clue..

I can talk on and on like that but not to the deaf ears…

I was excited after I read your first statement. I like gaining knowledge. But in the end you disappointed me.

You say that the prohibition of non-Hindus was ratified by the British parliament. Why should citizens of a secular, democratic and independent India care about the views of the British parliament (assuming there is such a ruling)? Wasn’t the same British parliament that considered Indians as inferior to the British? Then you state that Buddhist and Jains are “Hindus”. Most Buddhists and Jains would not agree with you. The word Hindu is Arabic and Persian in origin and first documented in the 15th century. This is almost 1500 years after the time of Buddha!

How can the term “Hindu” represent all religions of Indian origin when the origins of “Vedic Hinduism” is considered by many as foreign introduced to India by migrating Central Asians? Sikhism is a religion that originated in India and so is the Ahmadiyya. Can people who follow these religions enter the Puri temple? If all Hindus can enter the temple why isn’t a Christian from America who converted to Hinduism not allowed to enter the temple?

You talk about conversions and Muslims stealing the deity. This has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. But as Hindus we should also recognize that we have taken over places of worship of others and converted others as well. Most of South India until the 8th century was predominantly Buddhist and Jain. Brahminical religions particularly Vaishnavism took over these religions converting their followers (by persuasion and by violence) and also took over their places of worship (Tirupathi is a good example).

You knowledge seems to very limited in this matter. Let me tell you few factss which will clarify your mind.

1. The prohibition of Non-Hindus into the temple was ratified by British Parliament.

2. Buddhist and Jains are Hindus. Hinduism is a broad term that covers several faiths of Indian origin.

3. Coversion, re-conversion exist in religions originated in Jeruslem.

4. Twenty times there were attacks on Jagannath Temple by the muslims and 22 time the deity has to be taken out of the temple to secret places. Most of these places are now tourist spots. Especially the ones in small islands of Chilka lake are worth visiting.

Nowhere in our constitution does it say that a Hindu temple can discriminate based on religion. The fundamental basis of our constitution is inclusiveness. You also show lack of understanding of the temple laws. All Hindus are not equal in the eyes of the temple. All Hindus cannot enter the temple. Only Hindus of Indian origin can enter the temple. A Hindu from any other country cannot enter the temple. Also the temple allows Jains and Buddhists to enter the temple. On what basis did the temple authorities decide that Hindus of Indian origin, Jains and Buddhists can enter but not others. Also how does one enforce such a law? It is very arbitrary in nature. Does the temple state how a person can prove his nationality and religious beliefs?

This is a totally arbitrary and discriminatory policy. In fact this policy discriminates even against Hindus.

This discussion is about a Hindu temple and the way it is discriminating against people of other religions. It is about India and not about Saudi Arabia.

I would like you to read the first few lines of our constitution. The preamble says that We the people of India solemnly resolve to build India into a secular and sovereign republic.I wonder what hjappened to the “secular and sovereign” part..I am a hindu Sasani Brahmin from Puri.My family is very closely associated with the temple.And yet I am Indian and I strongly oppose any kind of discriminations to fellow human beings.

From a relegious point of view, if the Lord himself can eat from people of lower caste like Suaras and Savaras ,if he can step on to BadaDanda and let every one touch him, I can not fathom any reason why we lesser mortals are so bigoted and prejudiced

Finally, it is a shame that literate educated people believe in caste discrimination.Shameful, really.May be some reading on history of Orissa and evolution of Jagannath Cult will help you clear your mind.

Who is a Hindu? More importantly who get to define who is a Hindu?

Please note that according to temple rules even non-Indians who have “converted” to Hinduism cannot enter the temple. I do not know how anyone would convert to Hinduism because Hinduism does not have any requirements for conversion nor any rules and regulations that a Hindu should follow (it will vary depending on which scripture you read). But that is another subject.

The temple authorities currently do not check whether murderers, rapists, wife beaters, thieves or corrupt politicians enter the temple. But the authorities check whether a person is an Indian origin Hindu (although a persons belief is unprovable). How come allowing all these individuals preserves the sanctity but allowing law abiding citizens from other faiths and people with no faith at all will ruin the sanctity of the temple?

The truth Prakash is that a temple where a human being is discriminated at in the front door and inside the complex, has no sanctity to begin with.