The Proud Indian
INDIA THAT IS BHARAT
SATIRICUS is a proud Indian. But how proud an Indian is he? That is the question. Fortunately for him, there is a benchmark that can measure both the amount of Satiricus’s Indianness and the quantity of his pride in it. That benchmark is Rahul Gandhi, who recently proclaimed in ringing tones that he is a proud Indian. Of course, it is a truth universally acknowledged that Rahul’s Indian credentials are indeed incredible.
The first and foremost of them is that when his Italian mom married an Indian, she reportedly took just 16 years to become an Indian citizen. Could anyone else have shown such impressive alacrity in embracing Indianness? Later, when the born again Rahul Baba grew up, he went to Cambridge Varsity or did he? There was a Signor Raul Vinci who got some degree there, but there was no Shri Rahul Gandhi on the student roll. Suddenly, lo and behold! A couple of years ago, it was revealed that the Italian by name Raul Vinai was in fact Rahul Gandhi. Did that mean this proud Indian son of an Indian father was a prouder Italian son of an Italian mother? Oh, well, this genetic jugglery is beyond journalist Satiricus. At the same time Satiricus cannot help recalling Rahul’s own memorable words that show although he was always a proud Indian, India did not always deserve Rahul’s pride. For in one of his election orations he had disdainly declared, They used to look at India and say, Boss, the Hindu rate of growth ! They have been saying this for 3000 years. Ah, me, how right of Rahul ! Does this not show that people of the worldâ€”including assorted historians from different parts of it were learnedly condemning India’s 3000-year-old Hindu rate of growth of poverty? Surely, Satiricus should have been asÂ ashamed of that India as Rahulji clearly was. But here again the curious cuss in Satiricus cannot help wonderingâ€¦. which historians did Rahul Gandhi read saying that? He tried to find outâ€”and found out to his consternation that abominable ancients from different parts of the world, like the Greek chronicler Megasthenes, the Chinese traveller Huen Tsang and the Arab scientist Alberuni, had virtually ganged up against respected Rahulji in a conspiracy of contradiction. Megasthenes wrote a chronicle of India called Indika in which he wrote that India has a glorious history of a succession of more than 150 great kings. Huen Tsang and Alberuni were equally bad, for their wretched writings are a terrible testimony to India’s tremendous prosperity.
A shocked Satiricus said to himself oh, well, all this, even if littered with true lies, is history in the other sense, that is, all in the past, a past best forgotten. But here again a BJP boor proved a spoilsport. For a couple of years ago he wrote an article on Rahul’s phenomenal ignorance of India’s history in which he pointed out that even as late as the 17th century a European traveller by name Tavernier wrote: Even in small villages (of India) rice, flour, milk, butter, vegetables, sugar can be procured in abundance. As if this was not bad enough, another European traveller by name Manouchi went to the execrable extent of recording India’s prosperity province by province. What does all this hopeless history mean? As per Satiricus’s infantile intellect, it should mean Rahul Gandhi, the proud Indian, was actually ashamed of India of 3000 years ago because of its Hindu rate of growth of prosperity. Does that make sense? If not, why not? Because pseudo-secularism is not required to make sense.