Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic inv

aders. But on the contrary,unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the
country capitulated to become 100 per cent Muslims. India despite 800 years of b
rutal Islamic rule, remained 80 per cent Hindu.
The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.
The accepted history of no country can be structured on foreign accounts of it.
But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians
have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India.
The UPA has succeeded in persuading more state governments to accept the NCERT t
exts. A report on Monday (January 5, 2009) said 12 more state governments have a
ccepted to teach NCERT texts in their schools.
For the last two weeks the Organiser is carrying a series of articles on the NCE
RT textbooks prescribed for students at the primary, secondary and higher second
ary schools. We have found these books written with a peculiar mindset, to denat
ionalise and deculturise the young Indian. These books fail to make the children
aware of their true heritage. These books seem to distort even India's freedom
struggle, Mahatma Gandhi's role and try to divide the society into different cas
te and class segments. Their idea is to convince the children that India as a na
tion came to exist only after August 15, 1947.
We request the parents, teachers, students and scholars to join this academic ex
ercise to expose the shenanigans behind promotion of these books in Indian schoo
ls. ?Editor
The identity of India is Hindustan, i.e., a nation of Hindus and those others wh
o acknowledge with pride that their ancestors were Hindus. Hindustan represents
the continuing history of culture of Hindus. One?s religion may change, but cult
ure does not. Thus, on the agenda for a national renaissance should be the disse
mination of the correct perception of what we are. This perception has to be der
ived from a defalsified history. However, the present history taught in our scho
ols and colleges is the British imperialist-sponsored one, with the intent to de
stroy our identity. India as a State is treated as a British-created entity and
of only recent origin. The Indian people are portrayed as a heterogeneous lot wh
o are hopelessly divided against themselves. Such a ?history? has been deliberat
ely created by the British as a policy. Sir George Hamilton, Secretary of State
for India, wrote to the Home Office on March 26, 1888 that ?I think the real dan
ger to our rule is not now but say 50 years hence?.. We shall (therefore) break
Indians into two sections holding widely different views?.. We should so plan th
e educational text books that the differences between community and community ar
e further strengthened?.
After achieving Independence, under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru and the i
mplementing authority of the anglicized ICS, revision of our history was never d
one, in fact the very idea was condemned as ?obscurantist? and Hindu chauvinist
by Nehru and his ilk.
The Imperialist History of India
What is the gist of this British imperialist-tailored Indian history? In this hi
story, India is portrayed as the land ?conquered? first by the ?Dravidians?, the
n by the ?Aryans?, later by Muslims, and finally by the British. Otherwise, ever
ything else is mythical. Our history books today exhibit this obsession with for
eign rule. For example, even though the Mughal rule from Akbar to Aurangzeb is a
bout 150 years, which is much shorter than the 350 year rule of the Vijayanagara
m empire, the history books of today hardly take notice of the latter. In fact t
he territory under Krishna Devaraya?s rule was much larger than Akbar?s, and yet
it is the latter who is called ?the Great?. Such a version suited the British r
ules who had sought to create a legitimacy for their presence in India. Furtherm
ore, we were also made to see advantages accruing from British rule, the primary
one being that India was united by this colonialism, and that but for the Briti
sh, India would never have been one country. Thus, the concept of India itself i
s owed to the plunder of colonialists.
In this falsified history, it is made out that Hindus capitulated to Islamic inv
aders. But on the contrary, unlike Iran, Iraq and Egypt where within decades the
country capitulated to become 100 per cent Muslims. India despite 800 years of
brutal Islamic rule, remained 80 per cent Hindu.
These totally false and pernicious ideas have however permeated deep into our ed
ucational system. They have poisoned the minds of our younger generations who ha
ve not had the benefit of the Freedom Struggle to awaken their pride and nationa
lism. It has thus to be an essential part of the renaissance agenda that these i
deas of British-sponsored history of India, namely, (1) that India as a State wa
s a gift of the British and (2) that there is no such thing as a native Indian,
and what we are today is a by-product of the rape of the land by visiting conque
rors and their hordes and (3) that India is a land that submitted meekly to inva
ding hordes from Aryan to the English, are discarded.
Falsification of Chronology in India?s History
The fabrication of our History begins with the falsification of our chronology.
The customary dates quoted for composition of the Rig Veda (circa 1300 B.C.), Ma
habharat (600 B.C.), Buddha?s Nirvana (483 B.C.), Maurya Chandragupta?s coronati
on (324 B.C.), and Asoka (c.268 B.C.) are entirely wrong. Those dates are direct
ly or indirectly based on a selected reading of Megasthenes? account of India. I
n fact, so much so that eminent historians have called if the ?sheet anchor of I
ndian chronology?. The account of Megasthenes and the derived chronology of Indi
an history have also an important bearing on related derivations such as the two
-race (Aryan-Dravidian) theory, and on the pre-Vedic character of the so called
Indus Valley Civilization.
Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to
the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called ?Sandrocottus?. He was
stationed in ?Palimbothra?, the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear ho
w many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his sta
y, titled Indika. The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it avai
lable. However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quote
d passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collec
ted by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also av
ailable to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthe
nes and Arrian).
The founder of the Mauryas, however, is not the only Chandragupta in Indian hist
ory, who was a king of Magadh and founder of a dynasty. In particular, there is
Gupta Chandragupta, a Magadh king and founder of the Gupta dynasty at Patliputra
. Chandragupta Gupta was also not of ?noble? birth and, in fact, came to power b
y deposing the Andhra king Chandrasri. That is, Megasthenes? Sandrocottus may we
ll be Gupta Chandragupta instead of Maurya Chandgragupta (and Xandremes the same
as Chandrasri, and Sandrocryptus as Samudragupta).
In order to determine which Chandragupta it is, we need to look further. It is,
of course, a trifle silly to build one?s history on this kind of tongue-gymnasti
cs, but I am afraid we have no choice but to pursue the Megasthenes evidence to
its end, since the currently acceptable history is based on it.
In order to determine at which Chandragupta?s court Megasthenes was ambassador,
we have to look further into his account of India. We find he was at Pataliputra
(i.e. Palimbothra in Megasthenes? account). We know from the Puranas (which are
unanimous on this point) that all the Chandravamsa king of Magadh (including th
e Mauryas) prior to the Guptas, had their capital at Girivraja (or equivalently
Rajgrha) and not at Pataliputra. Gupta Chandragupta was the first king to have h
is capital in Patliputra. This alone should identify Sandrocottos with Gupta Cha
ndragupta. However some 6-11th century A.D. sources call Pataliputra the Maurya
capital, e.g., Vishakdatta in Mudrarakshasa, but these are based on secondary so
urces and not on the Puranas.
Pursuing Megasthenes? account further, we find most of it impossible to believe.
He appears to be quite vague about details and is obviously given to the Greek
writers? weakness in letting his imagination get out of control. For example, ?N
ear a mountain which is called Nulo there live men whose fee are turned back-war
ds and have eight toes on each foot.? (Solinus 52.36-30 XXX.B.) ?Megasthenes say
s a race of men (exist in India) who neither eat or drink, and in fact have not
even mouths, set on fire and burn like incense in order to sustain their existen
ce with odorous fumes?..? (Plutarch, Frag. XXXI). However, Megasthenes appears t
o have made one precise statement of possible application which was picked up la
ter by Pliny, Solinus, and Arrian. As summarized by Professor K.D. Sethna of Pon
dicherry, it reads:
?Dionysus was the first who invaded India and was the first of all who triumphed
over the vanished Indians. From the days of Dionysus to Alexander the Great, 64
51 years reckoned with 3 months additional. From the time of Dionysus to Sandroc
ottus the Indians reckoned 6452 years, the calculation being made by counting th
e kings who reigned in the intermediate period to number 153 or 154 years. But a
mong these a republic was thrice established, one extending?..years, another to
300 and another to 120. The Indians also tell us that Dionysus was earlier than
Heracles by fifteen generations, and that except for him no one made a hostile i
nvasion of India but that Alexander indeed came and overthrew in war all whom he
attacked.?
While there a number of issues raised by this statement including the concoction
that Alexander was victorious in battle across the Indus, the exactness with wh
ich he states his numbers should lead us to believe that Megasthenes could have
received his chronological matters from none else than the Puranic pundits of hi
s time. To be conclusive, we need to determine who are the ?Dionysus? and ?Herac
les? of Megasthenes? account.
Traditionally, Dionysus (or Father Bachhus) was a Greek God of wine who was crea
ted from Zeus?s thigh. Dionysus was also a great king, and was recognised as the
first among all kings, a conqueror and constructive leader. Could there be an I
ndian equivalent of Dionysus whom Megasthenes quickly equated with his God of wi
ne? Looking through the Puranas, one does indeed find such a person. His name is
Prithu.
Prithu was the son of King Vena. The latter was considered a wicked man whom the
great sages could not tolerate, especially after he told them that the elixir s
oma should be offered to him in prayer and not to the gods (Bhagavata Purana IV.
14.28). The great sages thereafter performed certain rites and killed Vena. But
since this could lead immediately to lawlessness and chaos, the rshis decided to
rectify it by coronating a strong and honest person. The rshis therefore churne
d the right arm (or thigh; descriptions vary) of the dead body (of Vena) to give
birth to a fully grown Prithu. It was Prithu, under counsel from rshi Atri (fat
her of Soma), who reconstructed society and brought about economic prosperity. S
ince he became such a great ruler, the Puranas have called him adi-raja (first k
ing) of the world. So did the Satpatha Brahmana (v.3.5 4.).
In the absence of a cult of soma in India, it is perhaps inevitable that Megasth
enes and the other Greeks, in translating Indian experiences for Greek audiences
, should pick on adi-raja Prithu who is ?tinged with Soma? in a number of ways a
nd bears such a close resemblance to Dionysus in the circumstances of his birth,
and identify him as Dionysus. If we accept identifying Dionysus with Prithu, th
en indeed by a calculation based on the Puranas (done by DR Mankad, Koti Venkata
chelam, KD Sethna, and others), it can be conclusively shown that indeed 6,451 y
ears had elapsed between Prithu and a famous Chandragupta. This calculation exac
tly identifies Sandrocottus with Gupta Chandragupta and not with Maurya Chandrag
upta. The calculation also identifies Heracles with Hari Krishna (Srikrishna) of
Dwarka.
This calculation must be necessarily long and tedious to counter the uninformed
general feeling first sponsored by Western scholars, that the Puranas spin only
fair tales and are therefore quite unreliable. However, most of these people do
not realise that most Puranas have six parts, and the Vamsanucharita sections (e
specially of Vishnu, Matsya, and Vagu) are a systematic presentation of Indian h
istory especially of the Chandravansa kings of Magadha.
In order to establish these dates, I would have to discuss in detail the cycle o
f lunar asterisms, the concept of time according to Aryabhatta, and various othe
r systems, and also the reconciliation of various minor discrepancies that occur
in the Puranas. Constraints of space and time however, prevent me from presenti
ng these calculations here.
However, on the basis of these calculations we can say that Gupta Chandragupta w
as ?Sandrocottus? c.327 B.C. His son, Samudragupta, was the great king who estab
lished a unified kingdom all over India, and obtained from the Cholas, Pandyas,
and Cheras their recognition of him. He also had defeated Seleucus Nicator, whil
e his father Chandragupta was king. On this calculation we can also place Prithu
at 6777 B.C. and Lord Rama before that. Derivation of other dates without discu
ssion may also be briefly mentioned here: Buddha?s Nirvana 1807 BC, Maurya Chand
ragupta c. 1534 BC, Harsha Vikramaditya (Parmar) c. 82 BC.
The European scholars have thus constructed an enormous edifice of contemporary
foreign dates to suit their dating. A number of them are based on misidentificat
ion. For instance, the Rock Edict XIII, the famous Kalinga edict, is identified
as Asoka?s. It was, however, Samudragupta?s (Samudragupta was a great conqueror
and a devout admirer of Asoka. He imitated Asoka in many ways and also took the
name Asokaditya. In his later life, he became a sanyasi). Some other facts, whic
h directly contradict their theories, they have rather flippantly cast aside. We
state here only a few examples ? such facts as (1) Fa-hsien was in India and at
Patliputra c. 410 AD. He mentions a number of kings, but makes not even a fleet
ing reference to the Gupta, even though according to European scholars he came d
uring the height of their reign. He also dates Buddha at 1100 BC. (2) A number o
f Tibetan documents place Buddha at 2100 BC. (3) The Ceylonese Pali traditions l
eave out the Cholas, Pandyas, and Cheras from the list of Asoka?s kingdoms, wher
eas Rock Edict XIII includes them. In fact, as many scholars have noted, the cha
racter of Asoka from Ceylonese and other traditions is precisely (as RK Mukherje
e has said) what does not appear in the principal edicts.
The accepted history of no country can be structured on foreign accounts of it.
But Nehru and his Leftist cronies did just that, and thus generations of Indians
have been brainwashed by this falsified history of India.
The time has come for us to take seriously our Puranic sources and to re-constru
ct a realistic well-founded history of ancient India, a history written by India
ns about Indians. Such a history should bring out the amazing continuity of a Hi
ndu nation which asserts its identity again and again. It should focus on the fa
ct that at the centre of our political thought is the concept of the Chakravarti
an ideal ? to defend the nation from external aggression while giving maximum in
ternal autonomy to the janapadas.
A correct, defalsified history would record that Hindustan was one nation in the
art of governance, in the style of royal courts, in the methods of warfare, in
the maintenance of its agrarian base, and in the dissemination of information. S
anskrit was the language of national communication and discourse.
An accurate history should not only record the periods of glory but the moments
of degeneration, of the missed opportunities, and of the failure to forge nation
al unity at crucial junctures in time. It should draw lessons for the future gen
erations from costly errors in the past.
In particular, it was not Hindu submission as alleged by JNU historians that was
responsible for our subjugation but lack of unity and effective military strate
gy.
Without an accurate history, Hindustan cannot develop on its correct identity. A
nd without a clearly defined identity, Indians will continue to flounder. Defals
ification of Indian history is the first step for our renaissance.