Thursday, 19 September 2019

Deplorable Detail

Updated: December 28, 2013 2:41 pm

INDIA THAT IS BHARAT

 

SECULAR Satiricus was happy to read in the papers the other day that this hopeless Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi’s ignorance of India’s ancient past is sought to be dispelled by some Congressman with a gift of history books. At the same time Satiricus must also confess to being confused. For he wonders: Can there be an ancient history book without an ancient history? Satiricus seriously doubts. For if, as all of us, men, women and Congressmen, are taught, the first Gandhi was the father of the nation, did it not mean that this nation is only 60 years young, not old at all? This chronological conundrum can be solved only if the nation that is India is accepted to be a continuation of the nation that was Bharat. But should it be so accepted? Would it not mean we proud secularists have a cussedly communal past?

And even if we admit it, we must always bear in mind that even in that dark past there was a shining secular light. It was the knowledge given to us ignoramuses by an Islamic fundamentalis when he publicly pointed out that the ancient civilizational history of India began with the arrival of Muslims from Arabia. Obviously he could not have been wrong, because he was a Muslim and Muslims have been officially declared as having the first right on the assets of India—one of those assets being the knowledge of our history. Unfortunately, it seems secularists live and unlearn. For they gave history books to Modi to correct him on Chandragupta Maurya—an inadmissible admission that Maurya preceded Mohammed. Satiricus read in the papers that Modi had confused Chandragupta Maurya with Chandragupta the founder of the Gupta dynasty. And if Chandragupta comes, can Alexander be far behind? Naturally not. So what do the said Congressman’s history books tell Narendra Modi? Satiricus hopes in all secular seriousness that they did not recklessly reveal that Alexander the Great was not so great after all. For after his pyrrhic (and even doubtful) victory over Porus his soldiers were so disheartened that they insisted on turning back. To quote Greek historian Plutarch, this so “enraged” Alexander that he “shut himself up in his tent and threw himself upon the ground, declaring, if they would not pass Ganges, he owed them no thanks for anything they had hitherto done, and to retreat now was plainly to confess himself vanquished.” And when he did turn back, how did Alexander the Great show his greatness? By making an actually visible show of his greatness. Plutarch wrote: “He could not retrain from leaving behind various deceptive memorials of his expedition to impose upon after-times, and to exaggerate his glory with posterity, such as arms larger than they were really worn, and managers of horses with bits and bridles above the usual size, which he set up and distributed in several places.”

See? Alexander the Great was great because the bridles of his horses were big. Satiricus has heard of a big lie, but he had no idea there could also be a big-size lie. History, a wit said, is a fable agreed upon. So there are also some other fabulous fabrications and communal quirks of history that this Congressman’s history books may not have seen fit to mention. For instance, have they deigned to disclose that Gautam Buddha, celebrated founder of Buddhism, was such a great believer in the Vedic Yajna that, to quote Dr. Radhakrishnan, “Buddha was born a Hindu and died a Hindu”? Another deplorable detail of history of those times was that Chandragupta Maurya’s grandson emperor Ashok did not become a Buddhist, it was king Ashok of the Gonand dynasty of Kashmir who did—and who, because of his consequent pacifism, could be overrun by his enemies and lost his kingdom. And what about the fanciful fact that Buddha was born 2500 years ago? According to horrid Hindu historian Dr. S. D. Kulkarni, who has written an 18-volume cultural history of India, Gautam Buddha, as Siddhartha, was 24th in line of the royal Surya Vamsha after king Brihatkshana was crowned after his father king Brihadbala was killed in the Bharat war between Pandavas and Kauravas, which took place during 3150 to 3100 BC, which would mean Buddha lived not 2500 years ago but nearly 2500 years before that.

What does all this history mean? It means such crassly communal chronology needs to be kept away from Modi the Menace; if he reads it, it might make this already horrid Hindu a truly horrible Hindu.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Archives

Categories