Should We Re-write Indian History?

08-26-2005, 06:45 PM

Should we re-write Indian History?

Indiaâs history, for the secular establishment, begins in the tenth century AD after Mohd. Ghaznavi embarked on his pilgrimage. According to celebrated leftist historians his repeated visits to Hindu temples had nothing to do with religion. Mohd. Ghaznavi merely wanted to set right social imbalances because temples in those days were centres of social activity. His second laudable objective was to take away wealth that was hoarded there and not used for the welfare of the masses. 

Our commie friends have been doing it - redistribution of wealth - for over seventy years till people in many countries felt that they had had too much of a good thing. That is why their historians feel a kinship with the Mohd. Ghaznavis.

Genghiz Khan and Tamarlene too were social reformers who showed the kafirs the path to direct and hassle-free salvation.

In the first decades after independence, school children had a template answer for questions about the rule of various emperors in their history question papers. All of them had had roads laid, trees planted, ponds dug and rest houses constructed for travellers. The child had to fill in the name and the answer was equally applicable to Ashoka, Kanishka or Sri Harsha.

The mogul rulers beginning with Babar reformed administration, established benign, people-friendly governance and instituted civic amenities. They did not demolish temples. If you say they did, prove it by giving us a ride in time travel and show it happening.

Emperor Aurangazeb in his magnanimity permitted kafirs to practise their religion and live peacefully by paying a small tax. British historians distorted facts by calling it Zaziya to sow dissension and âdivide et imperaâ. That is why - for Aurangazebâs magnanimity in permitting kafirs to practise their religion and live peacefully by paying a small tax, not British historians distorting facts by calling it Zaziya to sow dissension and âdivide et imperaâ - many cities in India commemorate his name.

Leftists can explain away events and - diametrically opposing views - with great felicity through Marxian dialectics. They could teach Goebbels a thing or two about propaganda. The mystery behind modern advertising executives wearing scruffy looks and crumpled clothes might be traced to their Marxist background.

Thus Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1954, Poland in 1962, Czechoslovakia in 1967 and Afghanistan in 1980 were historical necessities. The reason for American intervention in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Iraq was her imperialist expansionist designs and vulgarity of greed.

Query our Marxist friends about the purges of political opponents during the regimes of Stalin, Kruschev and Mao they will scorch you with their looks. Ask them why China massacred several thousand of her own civilians in Tiannamen square using not just machine guns but tanks and armoured personnel carriers, they reply that they do not have adequate information on the subject but that it might be capitalist westâs propaganda to malign Marxist progress. But fully informed they are on the exact number of civilians killed in American precision bombing of Iraqâs military targets during the liberation of Kuwait.

George Orwell did not foresee that his native land would in five decades realise his Minitrue, the ministry of truth. For the benefit of those who have not read Orwellâs Nineteen Eighty Four, his fictional communist paradise in the novel, named Oceania, had a Minitrue, the ministry for truth.

Orwell wrote the novel to open the eyes of the English middle class intelligentsia, which was toying with communism, a romantic idea of the time. Orwellâs novel delivered his timely warning with telling effect and put paid to a perilous turn the nationâs history could have taken. George Bernard Shaw was reported to have said âIf you are not a socialist below forty, something is wrong with your heart; if you remained a socialist after forty, something is wrong with your head.â

Orwellâs other novel Animal Farm also a spoof on communism, too, is a must read for lovers of democracy. Animal Farm begins with an ironical revolt of the animals that usurp the state with the cry âAll animals are equalâ. The animals got wiser and the commandment was amended to âSome animals are more equal than othersâ. This statute change created a pyramidal caste system in the âAll animals are equalâ society. The societyâs fat cats at the apex lived in opulence and luxury while the rest of the citizenry had to live on subsistence rations.

Orwellâ disguise was too thin - if the irony was too wry - for us not to miss his target. You can allow your imagination run riot by visualising many contemporary caricatures from the novelâs characters.

Returning to Nineteen Eighty Four, Oceaniaâs language was Newspeak. The objective of Newspeak was not to extend but diminish the range of thought. For example the word free has a limited meaning: free of lice, free of pests etc. In Newspeak, thinking of freedom other than that was allowed by Engsoc was thoughtcrime, punishable by death. Engsoc or English Socialism was Orwellâs euphemism for communism.

The function of Oceaniaâs Minitrue, was to constantly re-write history to suit the current philosophy and objectives of the rulers of Oceania. The nationâs history was constantly re-written and - all - copies of the previous versions were destroyed.

While the closet, crypto, pseudo and other species of the genus commie and their fellow travellers have been contributing their mite to re-writing Indiaâs history for over fifty years, the government of West Bengal has instituted a Minitrue for sanitising Indiaâs history. For WBâs Minitrue speaking or writing of Indiaâs past, which is contrary to the commie parivarâs worldview, is Saffronising history.

Fifty years after Sardar Patel ordered the restoration of Somnath, the celebrated historian, Romila Thapar felt the need to re-write history, an apologia for Mohd. Ghaznavi, who destroyed the temple. Contrast this with A. J. P. Taylorâs attempt to put the Origins of the Second World War in what he considered was the proper perspective, by tracing allied vacillation and turning a Nelsonâs eye over German rearmament. The British polity did not avidly lap it up but dismissed it as an overzealous attempt to defend the devil.

The role of the media in shadowing prevailing hypocrisy (euphemistically called political correctness) might be the subject matter of another article. But the distinction it accorded Romila Thaparâs de novo history vis-Ã -vis another chronicle by a Belgian journalist must be mentioned. Most newspapers and periodicals (except India Today, which published an objective review) eulogised the authorâs thoroughness in researching facts - probably awed by - and reviewed her eminence rather than the book. In stark contrast, Koenrad Elstâs book on the discovery of a massive temple by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) under the demolished mosque in Ayodhya was largely ignored (again with the honourable exception of India Today). No honourable publisher would publish Elstâs book for fear of treading a politically incorrect line.

Jawaharlal Nehru leading the pack of leftist historians, in his Glimpses of World History, had this to say of an eyewitness account of the grandeur of the Vijayanagar Empire: âWhat a scandalous waste of riches!â The eyewitness was recounting a royal wedding in which a splendid carpet, six miles long, studded with diamonds, emeralds, rubies, sapphires and other precious stones was laid for the marriage procession. Why did Nehru single out the only Hindu Empire in the South for such a derogatory attack when all through his book he lavished praise on China?

In his popular novel, The Prize, Irving Wallace noted that three thousand years ago the Hindu surgeon Shusrutha performed the modern equivalent of plastic surgery by transplanting skin from a girlâs thigh on to her burnt face and reconstructing her nose. Wouldnât you call that Saffronising history? For how can India claim such advancement before she became secular and acquire what our commie parivar fondly calls the composite culture?

Login




Remember me Lost Password?