Talk:Bhinneka Tunggal Ika

ajjwjaja

When the motto is adopted?
Any idea when and by whom bhinneka tunggal ika was adopted as Indonesia's motto? A cursory check (that is, one search on JSTOR) found it described as such as early as 1958, but no details on its history as the motto. Would be a good addition to a fine article. CDC (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Old Javanese/Sanskrit
I contended this issue last year and I will contend it again now. Since I last brought up the question of the true origin of this motto, I have talked to many more people in Indonesia (where I live) - mostly Javanese people - including university professors and experts of the Javanese language. As of this time, I have yet to meet an Indonesian who says that the motto originates from Old Javanese. Every person I've asked has either said they don't know (a small minority), or they have said it is Sanskrit.

The main article on Sanskrit says that of Old Javanese, perhaps half originates from Sanskrit (Zoetmulder, Petrus Josephus (1982), written at The Hague, Old Javanese-English dictionary, Nijhoff) and the main article on the Indonesian and Old Javanese languages reiterates the same claim.

In the Sanskrit article, "eka" is listed as meaning "one", and is not a far cry from "ika".

The main Sanskrit article also refers to: http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/austronesian/language.php?id=290. This article lists "bhinneka" as meaning "one" in Old Javanese, and its origin is Sanskrit.

The article on Old Javanese goes as far to say that Sanskrit had a stronger influence on Old Javanese than any other Indian language.

In addition, on http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sktdict.txt, "bhinnaa" means "separated", which would be another way of looking at the meaning "diversity". You can plug "bhinnaa" into other online dictionaries and get similar results, such as on: http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=bhinnaa&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU, which lists "bhinna" as meaning: different, different from, anything less than a whole, alien, divided into parts, disunited, split and other less relevant meanings.

Add to this the fact that so many Sanskrit words continue to be used in Indonesian (eg: aneka=many) and the validity of adding Sanskrit as the source is strengthened.

Given the already documented connection between Old Javanese and Sanskrit, the connection between "eka" and "ika", and the direct link between "bhinneka" and Sanskrit, I would like to propose that Indonesia's motto be shown as coming from Old Javanese/Sanskrit.

The circumstantial evidence of a complete lack of Javanese (or Indonesian) people who say it comes from Javanese is just icing on the cake.

Last year an "expert" on Old Javanese made a claim that what I'm suggesting is wrong, but in the very claim he stated that different books come to different conclusions, and it was about half-and-half, if I am not misremembering. He made an abrupt decision to say it's Old Javanese, but he provided no documentation to support his claim and, because of Wiki rules, his claim is thus invalid. Wiki requires documented references for anything put into Wikipedia.

I have provided that. Please let me know your thoughts.

ReveurGAM (talk) 04:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Please ignore as this has been discussed on the main page for Indonesia.ReveurGAM (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bhinneka Tunggal Ika. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100212100545/http://www.depkumham.go.id/xdepkumhamweb/xPeraturan/xUUD to http://www.depkumham.go.id/xdepkumhamweb/xPeraturan/xUUD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

meaning section
, refer to your latest edit here, which I have no objection. However, it makes wonder is it really necessary to have meaning section as it contain basically same information as on the lead section. As my understanding is whatever info put in lead section is a summary of other the entire part of the article. But I couldnt see how we can expand meaning section further. Should we just remove meaning section? Ckfasdf (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is still a lot of redundancy between the second lede para and the meaning section. I think the meaning section can stay, but the lede can be trimmed. I'll try to get rid of the redundancies. –Austronesier (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)