What I liked about that article was how Rama had to be added in. So, who will be added to the list of "manifestations" in the next village? Here's a little more on how they stopped using the name, "Baha'u'llah".
Accusations were made that Baha'u'llah was an Islamic prophet and that Hindu villagers would eventually be forced to eat the holy mother cow (24*) The situation became serious enough that reference was made to it in a National Spiritual Assembly letter dated December 10, 1963 which stated among other things that several Baha'i teachers were "touring the erupting area at a great personal hazard."(25*)All's fair in trying to make converts, I guess.
One of the main problems in this regard, of course, is that the title Baha'u'llah is itself indicative of an Islamic identification. Consequently one of the fundamental linguistic changes apparent in many of the bhajans created during this time was the substitution of the Sanskritic term Bhagavan for the Arabic Allah. Bhagavan is related to the words bhajan and bhakti in that they are all derived from the same Sanskrit root bhaj (to partake of, as in participation in a religious rite). An early Vedic god, Bhaga was probably so named because of a connection to such rites, and by the medieval period Bhagavan had become to mean Supreme Being and was often associated with devotional movements connected with Rama and Krishna. In Malwa villages, therefore, Bhagavan would not only be used to refer to God per se (Allah) but to his avatars as well. This dual usage was reflected in one bhajan where at one point we hear the line: "Bhagavan has said that he will return in every age to restore righteousness" and then later: "We must spread the news of Bhagavan Baha" (26*) Baha'u'llah thus becomes Bhagavan Baha, a title no doubt much more congenial to the Hindu villager's ear and perhaps more befitting of the kalkin avatar:
"Oh sing the praises of Bhagavan Baha, Oh sing the peace message of Bhagavan Baha, Oh manifest today the shelter of Bhagavan Baha."
Did you check the source of all that?
There is always more than one.point of view.
Regards Tony