Rahul Gandhi, The Great Historian!
INDIA THAT IS BHARAT
Poor Satiricus is a poor Indian. He is as poor as a (Roman Catholic) church mouse. Being an ignorant journalist he did not know why that should be so. But now he does, thanks to eminent historian Rahul Gandhi. He now knows that he is poor because he is a Hindu cursed with a long history of India’s Hindu poverty. Revealing his discovery of India in his erudite oration in his first ever public appearance before a distinguished gathering recently, Rahul remarked, “They used to look at India and say, ‘Boss, the Hindu rate of growth !’ They have been saying that for 3000 years.” See? The hoary historic truth of India’s poverty has been revealed. And this revelation has a scholarly, solid basis : It is that “they” have been saying so. Of course, if Satiricus does not know who these “they” are, he has only his ignorance to thank for it. Another reason for Satiricus’s ignorance may be that the history he read must have maliciously misled him.
Take Rahul’s historical period of 3000 years ago. This was broadly the period of Gautam Buddha and the Jātaka-s, of Emperor Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty, and Alexander’s invasion. And what do the Jātaka-s say? According to an author of 18 volumes of India’s history (the poor pen-pusher could write only 18; Rahul could have easily written 20), the wealth of India in those days was incomparable among all countries of the world. A devotee of Buddha presented him a pair of shoes that was worth 1000 pieces of gold. A farmer by name Kasi Bhardwaj was so prosperous that he employed 500 ploughmen. A merchant by name Anāthapindaka lavished 54 crore gold pieces on Buddha. A Brahmin gave away 6 lakh coins in alms every day. After quoting a round dozen such instances this author awfully adds, “According to the Jātaka-s such illustrations could be found in large numbers.” Satiricus is stunned. It is clear to him that this wretched writer posing as a historian must have read the wrong Jātaka-s while their real copy must be with Rahul.
As for the Gupta period, which hopeless Hindu historians describe as the Golden Age of India’s history, the Greek Megasthanes writes, “The Indians… inhale pure air and drink the very finest water. The earth has several metals, including gold, silver, copper and iron. Their robes are worked in gold and precious stones, and they wear garments of the finest muslin.” What does all this mean? It can only mean that this ignorant Greek did not know anything about the pitiably prosperous 3000-year-old Hindu rate of growth.
And what happened when the Greeks were followed by the Romans? If another wretched writer’s book on the history of ancient India’s influence on ancient Europe is to be believed, “using articles imported from India was a matter of status for Roman ladies, and wearing Indian fabrics was high fashion. In fact Indian textiles were imported into the Roman empire on such a huge scale that the Roman Senate had to impose restrictions on this import for fear that it would adversely affect the Roman economy. Pliny wrote that nearly half a million sterling flowed from Rome to India to pay for the balance of trade.”
From Roman times would Rahul care to come down to Roman Catholic times, the time of the Bible a thousand years later? Here too, alas, the Holy Book seems to admit some unholy facts. For if missionaries like Caldwell and Foulkes are to be believed, the shiploads of spices carried to Egypt by the Midiantistmerchants mentioned in the Bible (Genesis, XXVII) and by the sons of the patriarch Jacob (Genesis, XIII) had started from south India.
From the Biblical time of 2000 years ago could historian Rahul turn back in time 3000 more years beyond his reference period of 3000 years ago, that is, 6000 years ago, to the time of the Indus Valley civilization? If he does that he would feel sorry to find a society of ignoramuses that had no knowledge of anything called the Hindu rate of the growth of poverty. On the other hand the people of the Indus Valley civilization were so uncivilized that not just women, even men loved to wear ornaments. These ornaments were made of gold and silver as well as bronze and ivory. Both men and women were so finicky about their hair, which they wore long, that hair-dressing had become an important art. The hight—or depth—of the barbarism of these ancients was that all of them used toiletries and women used cosmetics, including lipstick.
What does Satiricus have to say to all this? He says for the sake of secular historian Rahul Gandhi all history that happened should be banned. In its place let’s have a history that should have happened.