Numerous academics and historians have come to the conclusion that ancient conquerors who were unable to pronounce the name of the River Sindhu invented the term “Hindu.” According to renowned Sanskrit lexicographer Sir Monier Williams, the words “Hindu” and “India” clearly lack any indigenous roots. These words are not written in any of the 23 official Indian languages, nor are they found in any Buddhist or Jain scriptures.
According to some sources, Alexander the Great renamed the River Sindhu to “Indu” when he first conquered India in 325 B.C. He created a word that was much easier for the Greeks to say by removing the first letter of the word, “S.”
The river eventually earned the name “Indus”.After that, the territory east of the Indus River was referred to as India by Alexander’s Macedonian army, a name that was mostly known to the British. Prior to this, the region was primarily referred to as “Bharat Varsha” throughout the Vedic era, and many people still favor using this name now.
Later, when Muslim conquerors from countries like Afghanistan and Persia arrived, they changed the name of the River “Sindhu” to “Hindu.” After then, the people who lived in the Indian province in the northwest, where the Sindhu River is, came to be known as “Hindu,” and the area itself came to be known as “Hindustan.”
The Parsee language’s conversion of the Sanskrit letter “S” into the letter “H” caused the Muslims to pronounce “Sindhu” as “Hindu.” The term “Sindhu” was still used by the locals, but as “Hindu” grew more common, it gradually lost favor. The term “world” was initially used by the Muslim invaders to classify the local population.
The Indians continued to refer to themselves as Hindus and Hindustan after accepting the term as a standard appellation established by the ruling class. Otherwise, it is clear that the word has no etymological origin and only has meaning for those who attach value to it or use it for practical purposes.
Kamal Haasan has defended National Award-winning Tamil director Vetrimaaran’s assertion that Raja Raja Chola wasn’t a Hindu king, which generated controversy.
It all began when Vetrimaaran claimed, “Raja Raja Chozlan wasn’t Hindu but they (BJP) are trying to steal our identity,” at a gathering he was a guest at. The attempt to saffronize Thiruvalluvar has already been made. Never should we permit that.
There was no term called ‘Hindu religion’ during Raja Raja Chola’s period:
Then Kamal Hassan concurred, saying, “There was no term called ‘Hindu religion’ during Raja Raja Chola’s period. The term “Hindu” was first used by the British because they were unsure of how to refer to Vainavam, Shivam, and Samanam combined. Similar to how Tuticorin was created out of Thoothukudi.
Vetimaaran’s comments were made barely one day after the movie Ponniyin Selvan: 1, which is based on a made-up book that was inspired by Raja Raja Chola, was released.
BJP Criticized the director despite Mr. Haasan’s backing for Vetimaaran. Raja Raja Chola was a Hindu ruler, according to BJP leader H Raja. “I am not as knowledgeable about history as Vetrimafran, but let him point out two churches and mosques established by Raja Raja Chola,” he questioned the Veteran. He went by the name Sivapadha Sekaran. Then, wasn’t he a Hindu? he ends with a question.
India is varied, syncretic, multilingual, and multicultural. In addition to causing regional anxiety and stressful fissures in the larger social fabric, when a single political party, religious organization, or linguistic cultural group self-selects itself as the sole custodian of Hinduism and wishes to impose its ways on the rest, they also violate the traditional “civilizational spirit” of our land.
Democracy grants the people the right to legitimately confront those in authority; when this freedom is curtailed, democracy devolves into anti-democratic tyranny.
Today, anything from religious practices to Indian social and nationalistic gatherings can be referred to as “Hinduism.” These occasions may still include non-Vedic content, therefore not all of them center on the Vedic literature.
As a result, not all so-called “Hindus” actually, adhere to or practice Vedic culture. Experts contend that the term “Hindu” is a far more logical replacement for the Vedic dharma for a variety of political and legal purposes until the term “Sanatan Dharma” is accepted on a global scale.
