• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should We Re-write Indian History?
Should we re-write Indian History?

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

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.

<i>Genghiz Khan </i>and <i>Tamarlene</i> too were social reformers who showed the <i>kafirs </i>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 <i>roads laid</i>, <i>trees planted</i>, <i>ponds dug </i>and <i>rest </i><i>houses constructed </i>for travellers. The child had to fill in the name and the answer was equally applicable to <i>Ashoka, Kanishka </i>or <i>Sri Harsha</i>.

The <i>mogul </i>rulers beginning with Babar <i>reformed administration</i>, <i>established </i><i>benign, people-friendly governance </i>and <i>instituted civic </i><i>amenities</i>. 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 <i>kafirs </i>to practise their religion and live peacefully by paying a small tax. British historians distorted facts by calling it <i>Zaziya </i>to sow dissension and ‘<i>divide et impera’</i>. That is why - for Aurangazeb’s magnanimity in permitting <i>kafirs</i> to practise their religion and live peacefully by paying a small tax, not British historians distorting facts by calling it <i>Zaziya</i> to sow dissension and ‘<i>divide et impera’ </i>- 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 <i>Goebbels</i> 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 <i>historical necessities</i>. The reason for American intervention in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Iraq was her <i>imperialist </i><i>expansionist</i> designs and <i>vulgarity of greed</i>.

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 west’s propaganda to malign <i>Marxist</i> progress. But fully informed they are on the exact number of civilians killed in American precision bombing of Iraq’s military targets during the liberation of Kuwait.

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

<i>Orwell</i> wrote the novel to open the eyes of the English middle class intelligentsia, which was toying with communism, a romantic idea of the time. <i>Orwell</i>’s novel delivered his timely warning with telling effect and put paid to a perilous turn the nation’s history could have taken. <i>George Bernard </i><i>Shaw</i> was reported to have said “<i>If 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.</i>”

<i>Orwell</i>’s other novel <i>Animal Farm </i>also a spoof on communism, too, is a must read for lovers of democracy. <i>Animal Farm </i>begins with an ironical revolt of the animals that usurp the state with the cry ‘<i>All animals are equal’</i>. The animals got wiser and the commandment was amended to ‘<i>Some animals are </i><i>more equal than others’</i>. This statute change created a pyramidal caste system in the ‘<i>All animals are equal’ </i>society. The society’s fat cats at the apex lived in opulence and luxury while the rest of the citizenry had to live on subsistence rations.

<i>Orwell</i>’ 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 novel’s characters.

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

The function of <i>Oceania’</i>s <i>Minitrue</i>, was to constantly re-write history <i>to</i> <i>suit the current philosophy and objectives of the rulers </i>of <i>Oceania</i>. The nation’s history was constantly re-written and - <i>all</i> - copies of the previous versions were destroyed.

While the <i>closet, crypto, pseudo </i>and other <i>species </i>of the <i>genus </i><i>commie </i>and their <i>fellow travellers </i>have been contributing their mite to re-writing India’s history for over fifty years, the government of West Bengal has instituted a <i>Minitrue</i> for sanitising India’s history. For WB’s <i>Minitrue</i> speaking or writing of India’s past, which is contrary to the <i>commie parivar</i>’s worldview, is <i>Saffronising</i> history.

Fifty years after <i>Sardar Patel </i>ordered the restoration of <i>Somnath</i>, the celebrated historian, <i>Romila Thapar </i>felt the need to re-write history, an apologia for <i>Mohd. </i><i>Ghaznavi</i>, who destroyed the temple. Contrast this with <i>A. J. P. Taylor</i>’s attempt to put the <i>Origins of the Second World War </i>in what he considered was the proper perspective, by tracing allied vacillation and turning a Nelson’s 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 (<i>euphemistically called </i><i>political correctness</i>) might be the subject matter of another article. But the distinction it accorded <i>Romila</i> <i>Thapar’</i>s <i>de novo </i>history vis-à-vis another chronicle by a Belgian journalist must be mentioned. Most newspapers and periodicals (except <i>India Today</i>, which published an objective review) eulogised the author’s thoroughness in researching facts - probably awed by - and reviewed her eminence rather than the book. In stark contrast, <i>Koenrad Elst</i>’s book on the discovery of a massive temple by the <i>Archaeological Survey of </i><i>India (ASI) </i>under the demolished mosque in <i>Ayodhya</i> was largely ignored (again with the honourable exception of <i>India Today</i>). No honourable publisher would publish <i>Elst</i>’s book for fear of treading a politically incorrect line.

<i>Jawaharlal Nehru </i>leading the pack of leftist historians, in his <i>Glimpses of </i><i>World History</i>, had this to say of an eyewitness account of the grandeur of the <i>Vijayanagar Empire</i>: “What a scandalous waste of riches!” 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 <i>Nehru</i> single out the only <i>Hindu Empire </i>in the South for such a derogatory attack when all through his book he lavished praise on <i>China</i>?

In his popular novel, <i>The Prize</i>, <i>Irving Wallace </i>noted that three thousand years ago the <i>Hindu </i>surgeon <i>Shusrutha</i> performed the modern equivalent of plastic surgery by transplanting skin from a girl’s thigh on to her burnt face and reconstructing her nose. Wouldn’t you call that <i>Saffronising</i> history? For how can India claim such advancement before she became secular and acquire what our <i>commie parivar </i>fondly calls the <i>composite</i> <i>culture</i>?

Messages In This Thread
Should We Re-write Indian History? - by Guest - 08-26-2005, 06:45 PM
Should We Re-write Indian History? - by Guest - 08-26-2005, 07:38 PM
Should We Re-write Indian History? - by Guest - 08-26-2005, 11:07 PM
Should We Re-write Indian History? - by Guest - 08-27-2005, 02:40 AM
Should We Re-write Indian History? - by Guest - 08-27-2005, 04:42 PM
Should We Re-write Indian History? - by Guest - 08-27-2005, 10:42 PM
Should We Re-write Indian History? - by Guest - 08-30-2005, 11:19 PM
Should We Re-write Indian History? - by Guest - 11-20-2005, 08:26 AM
Should We Re-write Indian History? - by Guest - 12-23-2005, 01:34 PM
Should We Re-write Indian History? - by Guest - 12-04-2007, 12:29 PM
Should We Re-write Indian History? - by ramana - 12-04-2007, 09:51 PM
Should We Re-write Indian History? - by Guest - 12-06-2007, 11:43 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)